Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

DARTFORD TUNNEL [MONEY]

Committee to consider of authorising the payment out of moneys to be provided by Parliament of any grant or other payment made or sum provided by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation attributable to any Act of the present Session authorising variations of the works authorised by the Dartford Tunnel Acts, 1930 and 1937, or empowering the County Councils of Essex and Kent to construct new works in connection with the said first-mentioned works (Queen's Recommendation signified), Tomorrow.— [The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Bahraini Convicts (Transport Cost)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now in a position to state the cost of transporting three Bahraini convicts to St. Helena in H.M.S. "Loch Insh".

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): Approximately £170 which will be reclaimed from the Bahrain Government.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is only a tiny fraction of the real cost? Is he seriously suggesting that this return journey of 12,000 miles outside the normal command area, made by a frigate specially air conditioned for service in the Persian Gulf area, was part of the normal tour of duty? Is not the Parliamentary Secretary

disguising the fact that it is the British taxpayer who will pay the major part of the cost of using a Royal Naval vessel as a "black maria" of the sea?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir. The vessel went ninety miles out of her way.

Submarines (Nuclear Propulsion)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has now received the technical information requested from the United States of America regarding the submarine "Nautilus".

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Exchanges of information on nuclear propulsion for submarines have not yet begun. Discussions as to the procedure for such exchanges will take place shortly.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the great strategic importance of nuclear-driven submarines for both offensive and defensive purposes, will the Minister say whether he is satisfied that adequate arrangements are being made with the United States for the exchange of technical information on this important subject?

Mr. Galbraith: As I said in my Answer, discussions on the procedure for such exchanges are shortly to take place—next month, in fact.

Mr. Bottomley: Can the Civil Lord say what has caused the delay? Why have not talks taken place earlier?

Mr. Galbraith: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, originally exchange of information on nuclear plant for submarines was not allowed to take place. It was only last year that agreement was reached that information on this subject should be exchanged, and now the precise procedure is to be considered.

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress has been made with the project for building a British atomic powered submarine.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Major Wall) on 30th January, and to the speech made on 5th March by my hon. Friend on the Navy Estimates, Vote A.

Mr. Fletcher: Will the Minister say whether responsibility for this very important development rests with the Admiralty or with the Atomic Energy Authority? Can he assure us that, wherever responsibility rests, real priority is being given to this matter?

Mr. Galbraith: The responsibility for this submarine rests with the Admiralty.

Senior Officers (Active List)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many officers of the rank of admiral, vice-admiral and rear-admiral are on the active list; how many hold commands, are employed at the Admiralty, are employed on other staff duties, or are not employed on any specific duties; and what were the corresponding figures on 1st March, 1939.

Mr. Soames: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Johnson: Can my hon. Friend give me two figures out of those for which I have asked? Will he say, first, how many admirals are now employed in commands and how many of those are operational commands which involve going to sea; and secondly, how many admirals are now employed in the Admiralty and how many were employed in 1938?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has asked for a number of figures. I would ask him to wait until he sees them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it the intention of the Government to cut down the number of admirals, rear-admirals and similar officers at the Admiralty?

Mr. Soames: The number of flag officers will depend on the size of Vote A.

Mr. Johnson: On a point of order. This simply is not good enough. I asked only for three figures and I really must insist on having those figures.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that they will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that figures have already been given and show that there are more captains and commanders in the Navy today then there were in 1945?

Mr. Speaker: That is not exactly a point of order. The Minister is quite entitled to circulate a number of figures and that saves the time of the House. The hon. Member ought to look at the Answer when he gets it and then see whether he wants further information.

Following is the Answer:


—
Admirals
Vice-admirals
Rear-Admirals


Total serving now on Active List
11
26
61


Those holding commands
6
12
12


Those serving in Admiralty
2
7
21


Those employed on other staff duties
2
5
21


Those on leave or unemployed
1
2
7


Total serving on Active List 1st March, 1939
10
22
51


Those holding commands
3
11
14


Those serving in Admiralty
3
5
11


Those employed on other staff duties
—
2
10


Those on leave or unemployed
4
4
16


Admirals of the Fleet are excluded

Battleships

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the date and cost of constructing and fitting out the battleships "Anson," "Howe," "Duke of York," and "King George V"; what has been their cost of maintenance per annum since construction; and what is the number of crew.

Mr. Soames: Her Majesty's Ships "King George V," "Duke of York," "Anson", and "Howe" were completed between 1940 and 1942 at a cost of approximately £M8½ each. No record was kept of their maintenance cost during the war years. For the past ten years it has averaged £40,000 for each ship. During this period maintenance costs have been progressively reduced until they are now very small indeed. These ships carry no crews.

Mr. Craddock: Does the Minister not think the time has come when we could dispense with these huge warships, which would be sitting targets in the event of hostilities?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised if I tell him that that is under active consideration.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the Parliamentary Secretary be a little more frank with the House when these Questions are asked? Does that mean that it is the intention of the Government to dispense with these battleships altogether in view of the fact that they will never be used again in any kind of war?

Mr. Soames: It means that the Government are considering it. When a decision has been taken, it will be announced to the House.

Mr. Shinwell: Where does the hon. Gentleman think he is?

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty in which actions against the enemy the battleships "Anson," "Howe," "Duke of York," and "King George V," have taken part; and how many times their guns were fired during those actions.

Mr. Soames: These ships played a notable part in the Second World War. "Anson" took part in ten actions, "Howe" in four, "Duke of York" in fourteen and "King George V" in thirteen. Since the detailed list of these actions is lengthy, I will with permission have it printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. During these actions, "Anson" fired a total of 509 rounds from her main batteries alone. "Duke of York" 1,265, "Howe" 602 and "King George V" 1.181.

Mr. Craddock: Can the Minister say how much that works out per round? Will he be good enough to speed up the Government with regard to getting rid of these large warships, which would be no earthly use in a future war?

Following is the information:

H.M. Ships "Anson". "Howe", "Duke of York" and "King George V"

Actions against the Enemy, Second World War

"ANSON". Commissioned 22nd June, 1942

September. 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys P.Q. 18 and Q.P. 14

December, 1942-January, 1943 Cover for Russian Convoy J.W. 51B and action on 31st December. 1942, with enemy surface forces

January, 1943. Cover for Russian Convoys J.W. 52 and R.A. 52

March, 1943 Cover for returning Russian Convoy R.A. 53

July, 1943. Operation "Governor", to pin down enemy forces in Norway during invasion of Sicily

October, 1943. Sea and air strike on enemy shipping off Norway. Operation to Spitzbergen with reliefs and stores

November, 1943. Cover for returning Russian Convoy J.W. 54A.

February, 1944. Sea and air strike on enemy shipping off Norway.

March-April, 1944. Cover for Operation "Tungsten", Naval air attack on "Tirpitz"

April, 1944. Sea and air strike on enemy shipping off Norway.

(Under refit, Devonport, June, 1944-March, 1945, then Mediterranean and Far East.)

"HOWE". Commissioned 1st June, 1942

February. 1943. Cover for Russian Convoy J.W. 53.

July, 1943. Invasion of Sicily, Operation "Husky". Bombarded Favignana, July. 11– 12

September. 1943. Under refit, Devonport. December, 1943-April 1944, then Eastern Fleet

September, 1944. Covered carrier air strike on Sigli, Sumatra

(Joined British Pacific Fleet. December, 1944.)

March-May, 1945. Operation "Iceberg", to neutralise airfields on Sakishima Gunto during American attack on Okinawa. On 4th May, bombarded targets on Miyako

"DUKE OF YORK". Commissioned 4th November. 1941

March, 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys P.Q. 13 and Q.P. 9

April. 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys P.Q. 14 and Q.P. 10.

May, 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys P.Q. 16 and Q.P. 12

June-July. 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys P.Q. 17 and Q.P. 13.

September, 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys P.O. 18 and Q.P. 14

November, 1942. Covered landings in North Africa, Operation "Torch"

(Under refit. Rosyth. December, 1942 March, 1943.)

June, 1943. Covered Allied reliefs for Spitzbergen

July, 1943 Operation "Camera", diversion to pin down enemy forces in Norway during invasion of Sicily. Also repeat Operation "Governor".

October, 1943. Sea and air strike on enemy shipping off Norway.

December, 1943. Cover for Russian Convoys J.W. 55A and J.W. 55B. Action on 26th December, 1943, resulted in destruction of German battle cruiser "Scharnhorst''

March, 1944. Cover for Russian Convoys J.W. 58 and R.A. 58

July, 1944. Operation "Mascot", naval air attack on "Tirpitz" (unsuccessful).

August, 1944. Cover for Russian Convoys J.W. 59 and R.A. 59A coupled with naval air strike on "Tirpitz".

(Under refit, Liverpool, September, 1944—March 1945, then to British Pacific Fleet) August, 1945. In Forward Area during final operations against Japanese

"KING GEORGE V". Commissioned 11th December, 1940.

March, 1941. Raid on Lofoten Islands, Operation "Claymore"

May, 1941. Operation against "Bismarck",

resulting in her destruction on 27th May.

October. 1941 Sea and air strike on enemy shipping off Norway.

February, 1942. Covered naval air sweep off Norway.

March, 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys P.Q. 12 and Q.P. 8

April-May, 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys P.Q. 15 and Q.P. 11

December, 1942. Cover for Russian Convoys J.W. 51A and R.A.

March, 1943. Cover for returning Russian Convoy R.A. 53

July, 1943. Invasion of Sicily, Operation "Husky". Bombarded Levanzo and Trapani Islands, 12th July

September, 1943. Under refit, Liverpool, February-July, 1944

(Left Scapa for British Pacific Fleet, 28th October, 1944)

November, 1944. Bombarded enemy battery at Lakida, Milos, Aegean, an route to the Pacific.

January, 1945. Covered naval air strike on enemy oil installations at Pladjoe, Palembang area, Southern Sumatra.

March-May, 1945. Operation "Iceberg", to neutralise airfields on Sakishima Gunto during American attack on Okinawa

July, 1945. Attack on Japanese mainland. Shelled Hitachi area of Honshu, 17th July. Bombarded Hamamatsu, South Coast of Honshu, night of 29th-30th July

Honshu, night of 29th-30th July.

H.M. Dockyard, Sheerness

Mr. P. Wells: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how the amount of incentive work performed in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Sheerness, during 1956, compares with the amount done in the previous twelve months.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The amount of work paid for under incentive schemes in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Sheerness, during 1956 increased by 41 per cent, as compared with the previous twelve months.

Mr. Wells: Can the hon. Gentleman say what saving, if any, has resulted?

Mr. Galbraith: Not without notice.

Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia"

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty his estimate of the expenditure on the "Britannia" for 1957.

Mr. Soames: It is not possible to predict with any precision what will be the cost of Her Majesty's Yacht "Britannia" during the calendar year 1957.
Firstly, it is not yet known for how many months of the year she will be in full commission, or how many miles she will steam; and secondly, it is not yet certain what work will be involved in her first major refit. which is due in the latter part of the year, until a survey has been completed.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister know that this £2,500,000 ship has cost £416,000 extra since she was in commission and until recently was costing £7,000 a week? Does not he think that we should actively consider economising on the ship? Does not he think that we would earn valuable dollars if we put her on the route between New York and Florida?

Mr. Soames: Strangely enough, I am aware of the figures quoted by the hon. Member, because I gave them to him. He is looking at the problem in a purely materialistic form. It is impossible to estimate the value to the whole Commonwealth of this yacht and the use to which the Royal Family puts it.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is a source of great pride to those who have the honour to serve in the Royal Yacht, which it is extremely difficult for Service personnel to get into; that, therefore, a high standard is maintained, and that it is quite impossible to estimate in terms of £ s. d. the invaluable work carried out through the Commonwealth and the world by the Royal Yacht

Mr. Soames: I quite agree.

Mr. Shinwell: While in no way seeking to show any disrespect to the exalted personages who use this vessel, and recognising that it has some value in respect of Commonwealth relations, may I ask whether the bon. Gentleman does not agree that to spend £7,000 a week on a vessel of this kind is going a little bit too far? Is not it possible to effect some economies?

Mr. Soames: The fact remains that a vessel of this size and character costs a lot of money to maintain.

Destroyers (Maintenance Cost)

Mr. Emrys: Hughes asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the weekly cost of maintaining the latest type of destroyer in commission.

Mr. Soames: The average weekly cost of maintaining the latest types of destroyer in commission is £8,000.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the admiral in charge of the "Britannia" said that a destroyer costs more than the "Britannia"? Is not there something wrong with the arithmetic in the Admiralty?

Mr. Soames: I remember the figure which I quoted to the hon. Gentleman in a Written Answer last week, when I said that the costs of the "Britannia" were in the neighbourhood of £7,000 a week. This is £8,000 a week, which is more.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Tankers and Freighters (Nuclear Propulsion)

Mr. Bottomley: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will make a further statement on the help his Department is giving to assist in developing atom-powered tankers and freighters.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member yesterday.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reply that was given to me yesterday, although helpful, still shows some complacency on the part of those concerned? Is not the Civil Lord further aware that unless we move speedily in the development of atomic-powered ships, we shall be cut out of the commercial market?

Mr. Galbraith: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency at all. We are going ahead as fast as we possibly can.

Mr. Willey: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that we must keep the lead in any new form of ship propulsion? Will

he give every assistance possible in the development not only of nuclear propulsion but also possibly of jet propulsion?

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, I give that assurance.

Steel Supplies

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the estimated supply of steel to British shipyards in 1957.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I cannot forecast what quantities of steel the steel makers may supply to shipyards during this year. As I said in the Adjournment debate on 13th March, the shipyards could absorb 75,000 to 100,000 tons of steel more than they received in 1956. The Iron and Steel Board knows of this requirement, and I have confidence in its expectation that it will be met.

Mr. Willey: Is the Civil Lord aware that we all earnestly hope that there will be an early resumption of work in the yards by giving a square deal to the men?

Mr. Ellis Smith: That means an increase in wages.

Mr. Willey: Meanwhile, will the hon. Gentleman continue to take all possible steps to see that when work is resumed there is no hold-up and output is speeded up so that we can compete with foreign yards?

Mr. Willey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement on the discussions regarding steel supplies to the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given on 6th March to a Question by the hon. Member for Sunderland. South (Mr. P. Williams)

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is not satisfactory? We really should get a result from these discussions, which are about as bad as those with the employers in the industry.

Mr. Galbraith: I cannot agree with that. As a result of the discussions which have taken place, the amount of steel going to the yards has show a continuous improvement.

Mr. Willey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we are also anxious to get some real assurance about sequence of supplies? It is the sequence which is causing a good deal of the trouble.

Mr. Galbraith: As I have pointed out to the hon. Member more than once, the sequence of the supplies will improve as the supplies themselves improve.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Books (Bulk Postage)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will consider the alteration of the regulations for the despatch of books abroad at a bulk rate of postage so as to allow the use of wire tape for packing instead of string which is stipulated at present.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): It seems reasonable to allow wire tape for packing for those books sent abroad in bulk in direct bags to agents, so I am asking other Administrations whether they would agree to this change.

Mr. Johnson: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply?

Railway Stations (Postal Facilities)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General how many, and which, railway stations in Great Britain have no postal, as distinct from telegraph, facilities including the sale of letter cards, stamps, postal orders, &c., available for travellers and others; why the public are deprived of these facilities; and if he will take steps to rectify these omissions.

Mr. Marples: The information asked for in the first part of the hon. and learned Member's Question is not centrally available, but if he will let me know of any particular case he has in mind I will gladly look into it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Postmaster-General not realise that, although this is linked with the economy campaign, the absence of these facilities not only involves inconvenience to the public but loss of revenue to the Post Office? Would he look into that in some constructive way?

Mr. Marples: I cannot accept the assumptions underlying that supplementary question.

Sir P. Agnew: Before considering providing such facilities at railway stations, will my right hon. Friend undertake to equip all our rural villages with postal facilities, which is far more important?

Mr. Marples: There is a balance of advantage in any given case. If the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) will send me details of the cases they have in mind, I will look into them.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Postmaster-General why the accommodation in King's Cross railway station which is now, and for six years past has been, used as a telegraph office, cannot be used for full postal facilities such as sale of letter cards and postal orders for travellers and other persons; and if he will now so reorganise that office as to provide these facilities.

Mr. Marples: As I told the hon. and learned Member in my letter of 13th March, we are getting into touch with the British Transport Commission about the possibility of providing facilities of the kind he mentions.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his letter was by no means satisfactory, that there is a good deal of space going to waste in this office, and that there is ample space to provide the public with the facility sought in the Question and to provide the Postmaster-General, incidentally. with more revenue?

Mr. Marples: I thought that my letter was eminently satisfactory. I am disappointed to learn that it was not so to the hon. and learned Member, because in King's Cross station there are stamp machines, a posting box, a telegraph office and a telephone kiosk and, 150 yards away, there is a branch office. In addition, I said that I would look into the matter and write to the British Transport Commission. I do not think that anyone could give the hon. and learned Member greater satisfaction than that.

Overhead Wires, West Bromwich

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the representations of the West Bromwich Council about his decision to erect overhead cables on some of the council's new housing estates; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. We propose to provide underground cables. In accordance with our usual practice, cables will run underground to distribution points, and from there by overhead wires to the houses. To provide underground cables all the way to the houses would nearly double the cost, and I do not think this would be justified.

Mr. Dugdale: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is very unfair to local authorities which try to lay out their estates as pleasantly as possible that these horrible things should be peppered all over them? Would he like one in front of his own house? Has he one? Would he like to have one?

Mr. Marples: I have one at the back of my house.

Longbenton Estate, Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Mr. McKay: asked the Postmaster-General when the promised post office for Longbenton Estate, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, will be established.

Mr. Marples: As soon as shops in unit 4 on the estate are available, but no date far this can yet be stated.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Wavelength, North-East England

Mr. Grey: asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he is considering for the provision of a separate wavelength for listeners to the British Broadcasting Corporation in the North-East.

Mr. Marples: The international allocation of medium wavelengths to the British Broadcasting Corporation is insufficient to provide separate medium wavelengths for the stations at Stagshaw, near Newcastle and Lisnagarvey, near Belfast. However, a very high frequency station at Pontop Pike was opened in December, 1955, and listeners to this have available the North of England Home Service with special items for the North-East.

Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people cannot afford to buy these new V.H.F. sets and, therefore, are not able to enjoy this facility? Would not it be a good idea to call another international conference similar to that which took place in 1948 to consider the allocation of medium wavelengths? Perhaps by that method we could obtain another wavelength which could be given to the North-East.

Mr. Marples: I think it highly improbable that this country would get an extra medium wavelength, because in 1948 we were allocated one less than we asked for and since then the number of medium wavelength transmissions have increased two-fold. Therefore, I think that highly improbable. Most European countries and this country are turning to V.H.F. as a solution to the limitations imposed by the general shortage of medium wavelengths. That is why special priority was given to the North-East in establishing one of the first V.H.F. stations.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the response of listeners to the new V.H.F. has been meagre? Will the B.B.C. do something to popularise V.H.F. reception, since apparently it is the only way by which the North-East can get decent listening?

Mr. Marples: I will see that that suggestion is passed on. However, some of the existing sets can be converted to V.H.F. reception. It is not necessary to buy a new V.H.F. set.

Mr. Grey: At what cost?

Mr. Marples: At very small cost. I can say that because long before I took my present appointment I had my own set converted to V.H.F.

Mr. Short: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Western Region has two wavelengths and why we in the North-East cannot have one of them when we have not one of our own? If it is not possible for the Western Region to give up one, why cannot two other regions share for the next twelve years, for we in the North-East have been sharing for twelve years, and surely it is fair that somebody else should take a turn at sharing?

Mr. Marples: The difficulty is that when two stations broadcast over the same medium wavelength there is an area


in between which receives extremely bad reception, which is, I think, technically called "mush." That area between the stations in the North-East and in Belfast is in the Irish Sea, where it does very little harm.

Mr. Short: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, I give notice that we shall raise this matter again, and that we shall go on raising it until the Postmaster-General does something about it.

News Service, Wales

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Postmaster-General (1) what steps have been taken to increase the staff of the news editor of the Welsh Region of the British Broadcasting Corporation, in accord with the Report of the Ince Committee of Inquiry;
(2) whether he is now able to make a statement on the steps taken by the British Broadcasting Corporation to implement the recommendations of the Ince Report with regard to an improved news service in Wales.

Mr. Marples: The B.B.C. has informed me that the Ince Report recommendation that the B.B.C. in Wales should consider adjusting the staffing to enable more positive steps to be taken to obtain news, is accepted and is being implemented.

Mr. G. Thomas: Is the Postmaster-General able to assure us that the lack of balance which was admitted in the Report will now cease, and that adequate financial resources will be made available to the Welsh B.B.C. to increase the number who are collecting news for it?

Mr. Marples: I prefer not to go into the day-to-day administration of the B.B.C. in this respect, but the B.B.C. has accepted that Report in principle, and has already taken steps to see that it is implemented.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the National Broadcasting Council for Wales, which is his instrument in this matter, the necessity to pay close attention to this Report and to ensure that cause for complaint will not arise on the same count again?

Mr. Marples: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have here a detailed report of all that the National

Broadcasting Council for Wales has done, and I think it has taken steps to implement that Report.

Mr. G. Thomas: On a point of order In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General has revealed that he has information——

Mr. Fell: A point of order?

Mr. Thomas: I am on a point of order. The hon. Member should be patient. In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General has revealed that he has the information for which I asked, would not it be in order for me to press him to give the information to the House and——

Mr. Fell: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Thomas: There is only one Speaker in this House that I know of. Would it be in order for me to press him to give the information to the House so that people in Wales may also know the answer?

Mr. Speaker: It is in order for the hon. Member to do so at another time.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Further to that point of order. Surely, Mr. Speaker, if a Minister in reply to a question says, "I have the information here", that can be of no possible benefit or advantage to anybody unless the Minister is going to publish that information in HANSARD. May we not, Mr. Speaker, have it laid down that if a Minister refers to a document he shall at any rate publish it in HANSARD?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman read from any document.

National Sporting Events

Mr. Hannan: asked the Postmaster-General what recent discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority about television broadcasts of national sporting events throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. Marples: None, Sir.

Mr. Hannan: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why it is, for example, that the international football match, England v. Scotland, due to be played at Wembley on 6th April is not to be televised this year, when last year the match was televised from Glasgow? Is


the right hon. Gentleman aware that the B.B.C. is receiving a good deal of misdirected criticism because of this, and can he say what the difficulties are?

Mr. Marples: I have my own personal view as to why, perhaps, it is not being broadcast, and that is that it is fairly certain that the result will not please some Scottish Members of this House. Generally speaking, in any TV programme there are two contracting parties, the organisation running the event and the televising company. I have no control over the organisations running the events. It may be that the Scottish Football Association has its own objections to televising this match. I think that most football clubs consider that the televising of an important soccer match affects the gates at other matches held at the same time. That has nothing to do with me. It is not my responsibility. I do not want to be unhelpful, and if the hon. Member would like to write to me giving the reasons why he thinks the B.B.C. ought to broadcast the match I will forward his letter to the B.B.C. More than that I cannot do.

Mr. Hannan: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the objection which he mentioned is likely to be obviated by the fact that there are likely to be only three or four games in Scotland that day and that most players also are likely to be down here to watch that game? Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with the parties concerned to see whether even at this late stage this game can be televised?

Mr. Marples: I have no responsibility for the Scottish Football Association, and the hon. Member really cannot hold me responsible for any views which it may hold.

Highlands and Islands

Mr. Grimond: asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to bring television to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and what areas will be covered.

Mr. Marples: The B.B.C. is considering what further extensions of its television service can be planned beyond the 98 per cent. population coverage which it will achieve about the end of this year. The needs of the Highland and Islands and of other areas are in mind, but it is too early yet to say what may be practicable.

Mr. Grimond: Will the Postmaster-General bear in mind that it may be too early for him but it is getting late for the Highlands and Islands where sound reception is very bad in some parts? Is he aware that we are most anxious to know when we may expect either better sound or television or both?

Mr. Marples: I agree that reception in the Highlands is bad and unsatisfactory. I went there myself recently. But the hon. Member must remember that even if financial considerations were out of it and finances were unlimited there would still be technical difficulties. With the mountains in this area, V.H.F. is not easy to get across.

Mr. J. MacLeod: Do I take it that there are no plans whatever for television in the north-west Highlands?

Mr. Marples: I was only pointing out the difficulties of giving the service to the Highlands.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no part of the country shall have three pictures before other parts have one?

Mr. Marples: One would have to take all these factors into account. It would be wrong if some parts of the country had an unlimited service while places in the Highlands had none at all, but I should not like to make any specific commitment at this stage.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do we understand from what the hon. Gentleman has said that the kites which are being flown for a third transmission in London are to take precedence over the North-West and Scotland?

Mr. Marples: That would be an unwarranted assumption.

Mr. Fell: Is not it a fact that the B.B.C. really has some duty in this connection to provide not 98 per cent. but possibly 100 per cent. coverage for television, particularly since it is getting, as a result of the popularity of the I.T.A., an increased revenue for itself and it really ought to spend some of that revenue?

Mr. Marples: When the B.B.C. has provided 98 per cent, of coverage, which is its first objective, it wants to do two things. First, it wants to provide fill-up stations for places within the general


coverage area where reception is inadequate, such as Peterborough and Berwick. Secondly, it wants to extend the service to those places, like the Highlands and islands, to which the original Question referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Aircraftman Desmond Bishop

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Air the result of the inquiry into the conduct of Desmond Bishop, a native of British Guiana and a member of the Royal Air Force, who was threatened with arrest and returned to his ship in a police car because he was walking hand-in-hand with an English girl in Durban.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): No action is being taken as the result of our inquiries.
The South African police deny having threatened Aircraftman Bishop with arrest. He was taken back to his ship at his own request.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement is very contrary to all the public statements at the time of this incident?

Mr. T. Brown: All the inherent probabilities.

Mr. Brockway: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when I addressed a Question to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations no reply to that effect was made? Is he aware that the reply was to the effect that because of the conditions in South Africa representations had not been made? Will the hon. Gentleman make further investigations into the matter?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not want to exaggerate this incident. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations explained, the airman was neither arrested nor charged. He was questioned, and at his own request was escorted back to his ship. Surely, the answer to the problem which the hon. Member has in mind is to ensure that men receive some guidance about local laws and customs before they go ashore in other territories. This was done and is always done.

Airborne Object, Wardle

Mr. Leavey: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that an abnormal, brightly illuminated airborne object was seen near Wardle in Lancashire at about 10 p.m. on Friday, 15th February, 1957; and what reports he has received from the radar warning system about this.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Yes, Sir. This object, which was described in the Press as a flying saucer, did not emanate from outer space, but from a laundry in Rochdale. It consisted of two small hydrogen-filled balloons illuminated by a flash-light bulb, and devised by a mechanic employed at the laundry. I understand he planned to construct from these experiments a small radio-controlled airship. There would be no reason for the radar system to report the appearance of a small, slow-moving object of this type.

Mr. Leavey: While noting my hon. Friend's explanation, may I ask him whether he is aware that it is most unlikely that that explanation will be accepted by those who saw this object? Is he aware that, in spite of the lighthearted tone of his reply, there is some general disquiet about these objects? Will he, therefore, take an early opportunity, preferably now, to make a general declaration that his Ministry is not at the moment involved, and has not been involved in the immediate past, in releasing objects which are normally described as flying saucers?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can certainly give that assurance. We have not been launching any flying saucers.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it possible to produce a few abnormal, brightly illuminated objects on the Government Front Bench?

Mr. de Freitas: Is there no truth at all in reports that radio amateurs have, at this very hour, picked up words spoken in English with a very strong Martian accent?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that that question should be addressed to the Postmaster-General.

Rations

Mr. Peyton: asked the Secretary of State for Air (1) what increase there has been in the Royal Air Force meat ration since the end of civilian meat rationing;
(2) what action he intends to take to improve Royal Air Force rations.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The daily meat ration in this country was increased by one ounce in November, 1954.
The scale of Royal Air Force rations generally, like that for the other two Services, has recently been under review, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Peyton: While we are all grateful that the matter is receiving consideration, may I ask whether my hon. Friend would please remind his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence that this is a longstanding and genuine grievance and that action must be taken shortly to put it right? Is my hon. Friend aware that if that action is not taken the matter will certainly be raised again in the House?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence treats this matter as one of great seriousness and also of some urgency.

Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this question has been under active consideration for a few years? When will this activity result in something?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am aware that it has been under consideration for a long time, but it is necessary to co-ordinate the rations for the three Services. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to announce the results of that examination in due course.

Officers, Education Branch (Qualifications)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many officers in the Education Branch of the Royal Air Force of the rank of wing commander and above, with scientific and technological qualifications, are now employed at the Air Ministry in positions which had in recent years been filled by arts graduates.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: One, Sir.

Mr. Johnson: Is my hon. Friend quite satisfied that officers are being used in the most useful capacity in the Air Ministry? Is he quite satisfied, for example, that no officers who have expert

knowledge of radio and radar teaching are employed on general education duties in the Air Ministry?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that my hon. Friend would agree that, as the Royal Air Force becomes more and more technical, it is important, particularly in the educational sphere, to have officers who have some knowledge of scientific and technical matters.

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Air, in view of the shortage of scientists and technologists, how many officers of the Education Branch, of the rank of wing commander and above, who have scientific or technological qualifications are employed in established posts in which it is essential that they should have these qualifications; and how many officers of the Education Branch of the rank of squadron leader and above who have scientific and technological qualifications are now filling vacancies which could adequately be filled by suitable officers with arts qualifications.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Twenty-seven wing commanders and above and 54 squadron leaders are employed in posts for which technological, as distinct from general scientific, qualifications are essential. To meet the needs of a highly technical Service such as the Royal Air Force it is important that a high proportion of the remaining 114 posts in these ranks should be filled by officers with scientific qualifications. At present forty-one are so filled.

Mr. Johnson: Does my hon. Friend really think it is necessary to employ forty-one highly-skilled officers with scientific and technological qualifications in the Education Branch in posts which were filled perfectly satisfactorily before by arts graduates?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would underline this point. I think that as the Royal Air Force becomes more and more highly technical it is important that there should be people at a high level in the Education Branch who have a deep knowledge of scientific matters.

Mr. G. Thomas: Can the Minister assure the House that these men with scientific knowledge are required to use that knowledge and are not merely fulfilling arts teaching?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The original Question said "essential," and in my Answer I gave the facts for those posts which we believe essentially require a knowledge of scientific matters.

Aircraft Noise, Greenham Common

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Air what steps he proposes to take, when the United States Air Force resumes the use of the base at Greenham Common, to prevent the considerable nuisance which has been caused in the past to residents of the area by the noise of aircraft.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I have recently visited a U.S. Air Force base and discussed the problem of noise at length with the general commanding. I can assure the hon. Member that the United States authorities are doing all they can to reduce disturbance to an absolute minimum. They could prevent it at Greenham Common only by stopping flying. The importance of the airfield to the common defence effort makes that impossible.

Mr. Mikardo: Whilst thanking the hon. Gentleman very much for the action he has taken, which I am sure will be greatly appreciated, may I ask him to represent to the commander of the base that, as far as possible, he ought to try to bar low flying near the National Institute for Research in Dairying which is nearby and in which the experiments are very much upset by vibration and noise from low-flying aircraft?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Canals (Danger to Children)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the fact described in the letter sent him by the hon. Member for Accrington, he will issue a general direction to the British Transport Commission with a view to removing the danger caused to children by canals.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): No, Sir. I greatly deplore these accidents, but the dangers cannot be entirely removed without interference with the very necessary right of access to canal banks.

In the particular case about which the hon. Member wrote to me, British Transport Waterways is meeting the local council on the site tomorrow to see what can be done to reduce the danger there.

Mr. Hynd: As the Minister is apparently well aware of the case I have in mind where there has been a series of tragic accidents to children, will he do everything he can in his Department to help the local authorities and the Commission to overcome this difficulty?

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I certainly will.

Staggering of Working Hours (Central London)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what action has been taken following the inquiry into starting and finishing times of work instituted by the Committee for Staggering of Working Hours in Central London, and otherwise to relieve traffic congestion by staggering the hours of work.

Mr. Watkinson: After its preliminary review the Committee is tackling the problem by dividing Central London for this purpose into zones, each with a widely representative sub-committee to work out and progress a scheme for each zone. Further information is being provided by the travel census now being taken by the British Transport Commission. Good progress is being made outside the central area in discussions between London Transport and education authorities. Fourteen schools have already changed their hours.

Mr. Davies: While appreciating that this action is being taken in regard to this very necessary matter of staggering working hours, may I ask the Minister whether he appreciates that, in view of the improved traffic conditions, public opinion now is far more receptive than formerly to action being taken? Would not it be advisable to undertake an educational campaign among the travelling public in order to get them interested in continuing the staggering of hours even after petrol rationing has ended?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. In conjunction with the London Transport Executive and British Railways we are shortly going to start a publicity campaign, which I hope will do some good.

Omnibuses, London (Standing Passengers)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is satisfied that the rule limiting the number of standing passengers in London Transport omnibuses is not causing unnecessary hardship to the travelling public at a time when the services on many routes is less frequent; and if he will amend his Regulations so as to increase the maximum permitted number.

Mr. Watkinson: The Regulations already permit a greater number of standing passengers than are in fact carried under an agreement between London Transport and the Transport and General Workers' Union. Services have not been reduced during peak periods and buses are running better because of easier traffic conditions.

Mr. Vane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is not an answer to my Question? I asked whether, during the present petrol shortage and reduction in the number of services, my right hon. Friend would look into this matter again?

Mr. Watkinson: I am not quite sure into what my hon. Friend wants me to look. If he means, are we trying to take steps to ensure that the regularity of bus services continues, the answer is "Yes, very much."

Mr. Ernest Davies: Is not this a matter for consultation between the unions and the London Transport Executive? The Minister does not come into the matter. Agreement must be reached between the unions and the London Transport Executive before any change can take place.

Mr. Watkinson: I am not seeking to vary the number of passengers.

Mr. Vane: Is not this a case of the Minister looking after the interests of the travelling public as well as of bearing other considerations in mind?

Mr. Watkinson: Of course it is my duty to look after the interests of the travelling public, but what I have already said is that it does not appear to be necessary to increase the number of standing passengers, because the buses are already coping with the load quite adequately.

Conservancy Authority, Milford Haven

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the result of his consultations about the establishment of a conservancy authority for Milford Haven.

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has reached a decision regarding the setting up of a conservancy authority for Milford Haven.

Mr. Watkinson: The proposal to establish a conservancy authority for Milford Haven has been welcomed by all concerned, and the Government will introduce a Bill in the next Session of Parliament for this purpose.

Mr. Donnelly: May I put two questions to the Minister? The first is, has the right hon. Gentleman come to any decision about the constitution of the conservancy authority and will he bear in mind the importance of having a National Parks representative on it? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman say what is to happen while we are waiting for legislation?

Mr. Watkinson: In answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, the constitution of the authority is under discussion with all the interests concerned, and I am most anxious that it should be as representative as possible. With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I believe he knows that I have already set up a small technical ad hoc committee representing most of the main interests concerned to deal with the immediate problems that may arise until the Bill comes before the House.

Road Accidents

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the reduction in the number of road accidents and of persons killed and injured in such accidents, respectively, since petrol rationing was introduced; and what steps he is taking to stress the need for the road safety campaign on motorists and the general public.

Mr. Watkinson: From 1st December last to 28th February deaths fell by 280 and injuries by 8,457 compared with the same period a year ago


although February itself shows a slight increase. Figures for accidents as distinct from casualties are not yet complete.
I am continuing, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and local road safety committees throughout the country, to urge road safety on all road users.

Mr. Hunter: While thanking the Minister for that reply, and noting the welcome reduction in the number of accidents and deaths, may I ask him to make sure that when petrol rationing ends and there is more traffic on the roads, the public is not lulled into a belief that the figures have fallen? Also, will the right hon. Gentleman stress the need for conducting even more vigorously the road safety campaign in the interests of the general public?

Mr. Watkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this point. I am raising with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents the question of a special campaign which we might try to time with the ending of petrol rationing in an attempt to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Rescue and Salvage, Scotland

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what provision is made by his Department for the protection and salvage of shipping and seamen in danger at sea round the coasts of Scotland; who carries out these duties on shore and at sea; and what are the wages, allowances, pensions and conditions of service of the persons who do this work.

Mr. Watkinson: As the Answer is rather long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Minister for that uninformative Answer, may I ask him whether it is not time that these services were taken over by his Ministry instead of being left to public charity and flag days? Will he take steps to that end?

Mr. Watkinson: I should hesitate to interfere with a voluntary service which

contains some of the bravest men in the country and which is providing a very adequate service.

Following is the Answer:
The preservation of shipping and the lives of seamen around the coasts of the United Kingdom is the principal duty of Her Majesty's Coastguard, supported by the voluntary Coast Life-Saving Corps. In this task the Coastguard enjoy the full co-operation of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force and of the coast radio stations of the General Post Office. They are also able to count on the voluntary assistance of units of the U.S. Air Force is this country. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution provide and man the lifeboats as a voluntary service and work in close co-operation with the Coastguard. I shall be giving the hon. and learned Member details of the pay and conditions of service of the Coastguard in reply to a Question he has put down for answer next week.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Severn Bridge Project

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will restore the priority formerly given to the Severn bridge project; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave my hon. Friend on Wednesday, 6th March.

Mr. Gower: Has my right hon. Friend noted that since responsibility for the Forth Bridge passed from his own Department to the Scottish Office that project has been advanced in priority, despite the fact that local opinion was divided on the question of tolls? As the people in West Wales and the West of England want a Severn Bridge, with or without tolls, will the Minister name a starting date for the Severn crossing?

Mr. Watkinson: No. What I have noticed is that the Scots have stolen a march on the English, as they often do, but that does not affect the priorities either for the Tyne crossing or the Severn Bridge, which I have very much in mind.

Tyne Crossing

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what decision he has made since his meeting with the Tyne Tunnel Joint Committee on 1st February, with regard to the construction of a bridge or a tunnel, the use of a toll to defray its cost, and the method by which such toll should be fixed.

Mr. Watkinson: I have asked the shipping interests concerned to reconsider the headroom needed for a bridge, and until I have received and considered their views I cannot reach any conclusion yet about a bridge or a tunnel. I consider that either type of crossing should be financed at least partly by tolls, but it would be premature at this stage to consider how they should be fixed.

Mr. McKay: Is not the Minister aware that today several hon. Members have received a report of the decision made by the Tyne Commissioners on this very project and that they have sent the same report to him, which he should have received this morning? Further, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Tyne Commissioners have spent about £ 60 million on improvements to the Tyne, and is not it correct that, after seriously considering the Minister's suggestion, the Commissioners have definitely turned down the project of building a bridge? Is not it correct that the Commissioners have informed us that a ship has already been designed with a 190 ft. mast which is higher than the proposed bridge, and will the right hon. Gentleman make some real effort to get a tunnel?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is enough for one question.

Mr. Watkinson: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that the Tyne Commissioners' advice will be very carefully considered, but they are not the only people I have to consult.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

London Airport— Central London (Railway Link)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will give further information on the proposed railway link to London Airport from Central London.

Mr. Watkinson: The British Transport Commission and the Airline Corporations are considering the Report of a Working Committee set up to examine this matter. I expect to receive their recommendations in due course.

Airports (Television Masts)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will in all cases consult representatives of the

air pilots on the possible dangers before agreeing to the erection of tall television masts within a radius of five miles from an aerodrome.

Mr. Watkinson: Yes, Sir, on those occasions when the erection of a mast is likely to infringe the internationally agreed standards and procedures.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that my information is that the pilots have not been considered, and that as a result 158 hours have been spent in the air unnecessarily because of the Wenvoe mast; and, as £ 6,000 has been wasted, will he now consult with these men before a mast is erected in the neighbourhood?

Mr. Watkinson: I answered the hon. Gentleman's Question. If he wants to ask a Question about the Wenvoe mast, and will put one down, I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATOMIC ENERGY

United Kingdom and United States (Exchanges of Information)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Paymaster General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if the American Atomic Energy Authority has now agreed to exchange information with this country regarding its atomic power station at Shippingport.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): I have been asked to reply. I have at present nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member on 13th March.

Mr. Fletcher: Would the Minister confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to seek a basis of understanding with the United States for a full exchange of information on this subject?

Mr. Jones: Yes, Sir. I gladly give that confirmation. An offer for the exchange of detailed information has been made to the United States, and that offer is now under consideration.

Euratom (Nuclear Reactors)

Mr. Warbey: asked the Paymaster-General, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what steps he is taking to associate the United Kingdom with the countries participating in the European Atomic Agency in a joint programme for the construction of prototype nuclear reactors of varied types.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I have been asked to reply. The United Kingdom has for the last year taken part in discussions with other Western European countries in the Organisation for European Economic Co-operation on the construction as joint projects of various types of experimental reactors. The United Kingdom has declared its readiness to consider participating on one of the reactor systems on which the United Kingdom is not already concentrating a major effort in its own development programme. We should also be ready to consider siting such a reactor in the United Kingdom, if the other participating countries wished.

Mr. Warbey: Is the Minister aware that it is reported that the Euratom countries are ready to go ahead very fast with a programme for constructing various types of prototype reactors, and that this may give them substantial advantages in the years to come? Is there any way in which this country can be associated with them without becoming a full member of Euratom?

Mr. Jones: I can only repeat that, without having become full members of Euratom, we have put forward concrete proposals for co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (LIMITATIONS ON TRADE)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he intends taking in response to the request of the Federation of British Industries and the National Chambers of Commerce that the limitations on trade with China should be considerably reduced.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore): The letter referred to suggested that this subject should be discussed at Bermuda.
Full weight has been given to the representations referred to by the hon. Member and it is likely that this topic will be raised in the Bermuda discussions.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—and I hope his right hon. and learned Friend will take notice of this—that there are many organisations and people here who are convinced that this country is about the only one in the world which is complying with the

strategic list, that many of the items on the list are completely out of date, and that the list should be revised?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that his first assumption is totally untrue. A great many other countries are complying with these restrictions, and it is a question of getting agreement with those other countries before we can be relieved of these restrictions any further.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Since the hostilities in Korea ended in 1953, is not it about time that these restrictions ended too?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have said that this topic is to be discussed, but we are still operating under a United Nations Resolution, and we have to get agreement with a large number of other countries.

Mr. H. Wilson: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that my right hon. Friend is wrong, he is the only person in this country who really thinks that. Will the Minister ensure that when this matter is raised at Bermuda, which we all welcome, it will be borne in mind that it stems from action taken in 1951 under the United Nations Resolution of 18th May, and that various predecessors of his have given as the excuse for the continuance of these restrictions first, that fighting was going on in Korea and, second, that fighting was going on in Indo China—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister ask his right hon. and learned Friend to bring it to the attention of the American Government that all these factors are long in the past, and that our trading interests are being prejudiced?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Of course we shall take all these factors into account, but I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the United Kingdom has made as much use of the exceptions procedure as any other country.

Mr. Bevan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every time this question has been raised the answer has been that the American administration is faced with Congressional pressure from the Chinese "lobby", and would not it be desirable if we had some pressure from this lobby, including hon. Gentlemen opposite?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think that is an excuse which has ever been used in this House for the procedure —[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—I am saying that it has not been used in this House and that this matter is to be considered at the Bermuda Conference.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you to introduce some form of rationing, or physical control, as regards the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench opposite?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. Mr. Biggs-Davison.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.N.R.W.A. (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what contribution has lately been made by the United Kingdom to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East; and in what currency.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: In the current financial year the United Kingdom has paid the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees the following sums: 8th August, 1956, £714,286; 9th January, 1957, £857,143; 5th March, 1957, £357,143; making a total of £1,928,572.
The payments were made to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's account in London in sterling.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Can the Minister say whether a part of this money is to be used towards supporting the United Nations Emergency Force?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, it is not, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUEZ CANAL (DUES)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now give advice to British shipping on the payment of Suez Canal dues.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There has been no official reply from the Egyptian Government to the Four-Power proposals for interim arrangements for payment of dues. We have, of course, seen the reports of the Egyptian Memorandum published in Cairo on 19th March and we are

studying this. Meanwhile it is not possible for Her Majesty's Government to give advice to British ship-owners.

Mr. Grimond: In view of what the Egyptians have said and the fact that it is said that the Canal will be opened in a very short time, is not it time Her Majesty's Government were in a position to make an announcement about this? What is to be the position when British ships arrive at the ends of the Canal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not only Her Majesty's Government who are in this position. All the members of the United Nations are in this position. Proposals were put to the Secretary-General and he passed them on to the Egyptian Government, and I think we can still expect that the Egyptian Government should give some reply to the proposals put to them by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is this, then, one of the subjects which the Secretary-General will be discussing with the Egyptian Government at the present moment?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir; that is so.

Captain Waterhouse: May I take it that it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to resist unfettered control of the Canal, a policy which would preclude the payment of all dues to any one country?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That goes very much wider than the Question and 1 should not like to give an answer.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY (STRIKE)

Mr. Robens: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on the further developments in the shipbuilding dispute.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. fain Macleod): Following the meeting with the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions and the informal talks with the President of the Shipbuilding Employers Federation, to which I referred yesterday, I met representatives of the Employers' Federation last night and they are to discuss the situation with their Executive later today and with their Board tomorrow morning, after which I will see them again.
I am meeting representatives of the engineering employers later this afternoon.
As regards the interesting suggestion which was made yesterday by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and which is similar to one that I and my officials already had in mind, I am able to say that the shipbuilding employers are willing to give it their careful consideration. Although I have not so far been able to obtain the full official view of the unions, I am given to understand that they are not likely to favour the suggestion.

Mr. Robens: While the right hon. Gentleman and I probably have a rather different approach to the ideas that we have in suggesting solutions to the problem, will he accept my assurance that all hon. Members on this side of the House are as deeply anxious as he and his hon. Friends are to see the end of this dispute, and that anything that we say is intended as a real contribution towards securing peace?
Is it not now the case that on Saturday we shall be faced with a strike by the engineering workers in a number of very large centres in the country, and did not the Minister indicate that these two disputes were tied together? While there may be some doubt as to the adequacy of negotiations in relation to the shipbuilding industry, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there can be no doubt whatever that there have been no negotiations in respect of the engineering industry and that, in fact, the engineering employers refused to look at the case before the application was made?
Yesterday, it was said that anything which is a matter for arbitration is also a matter for negotiation. Therefore, will he not now again look at the suggestion which has been put to him from this side of the House ever since the dispute started, that he should call under his personal chairmanship the leaders of both sides of the industry? Would it not be useful for him to suggest that they might consider the whole question of wages together with some of the other problems of these industries, such as the question of restrictive practices and the efficiency of the industries in the future? A whole field of useful conversations could take place, and this would end the strike immediately.
Although the right hon. Gentleman has said that he must await his own timing, would it not be better now to take this action instead of waiting until tempers are frayed and bitter things are being said, which would mean that his efforts in the future would be much less likely to be effective than action taken now?

Mr. Macleod: I think that the whole House will welcome—I very much do—what the right hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary questions. To refer to what he has said about the engineering dispute, it is true that the two disputes are entirely linked, and I think it also follows that if we get a solution or indeed, make progress on either front, it will spread to the other. I am seeing the engineering employers this afternoon, bearing that in mind.
The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the timing of a meeting under my chairmanship. I am, of course, going to take such action, and I rather hope that such a meeting will take place tomorrow. But it cannot be effective until I have the full, considered views of the shipbuilding employers, and that is why their executive is meeting tonight and their full board is meeting tomorrow. I think that in about 24 hours I shall have their considered views. As I said in my original Answer, I will certainly meet them and bring the unions in at once.
On the wider question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, about linking this matter and restrictive practices, which have been a source of trouble to the industry for a long time, that was a point of view put forward, among others, by the Leader of the Liberal Party. I think that the situation is perhaps rather more hopeful than when I gave my answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party a few days ago. I think that there is a general view developing in the country that something along those lines would be an extremely sensible approach, and it is one that I have borne in mind and have, indeed, tried to achieve in the discussions that I have had.

Mr. Lee: I should like to follow up my right hon. Friend's point about the need for negotiations. As my right hon. Friend said, minds were made up not to negotiate; in other words, the appeal


was refused before it was heard. Did not the employers use the meetings which took place between them and the engineering unions to assert their rights to do precisely what they liked in their own industries? Is it not the case that in pre-war days they never attempted to disguise that as "negotiation"? It was known as "the exercise of managerial functions", and the employers locked us out for 13 weeks on that basis.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the similarity between the attitude of those days and the present attitude is causing many of us to fear that we are getting back to the type of thing to which I have referred. I hope that even at this late hour an appeal from this House that negotiations should proceed, and that both sides should get round the conference table and bargain on this matter, will not fall on deaf ears so far as the employers are concerned.

Mr. Macleod: Surely the function of the House is not to plead the cause of either the unions or the employers. Surely the function of the House is to try to speak for the millions of people who will be hurt by this strike and who are sick at heart at the folly of it all.

Mr. J. Howard: Might I be a little more parochial and ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any statement to make about the postponement of the sailing of the "Queen Mary" from Southampton, and whether he will use his good offices to ensure that this valuable service is not interrupted?

Mr. Macleod: I have, of course, been closely in touch with the developments, but such questions should not be addressed to me.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that, after thirty years' experience, I have never seen the men more determined and more sure that they were right than they are now? Is he aware that yesterday afternoon there took place a conference at which the delegates were more united than ever before? Rather than allow the country to run to ruin, will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative to a greater extent than he has so far done and recommend the employers to make a substantial contribution towards the solution of the problem by giving an advance in wages and then being prepared to consider an agenda to be arranged by the Minister?

CYPRUS

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): With permission, Sir, I rise to make a statement on Cyprus.
The Representative of Her Majesty's Government on the North Atlantic Council has received a communication from the Secretary-General, Lord Ismay, offering his good offices for conciliation on the Cyprus question in accordance with the resolution on the peaceful settlement of disputes which was adopted by the North Atlantic Council last December.
The Representative of Her Majesty's Government has been instructed to inform the Secretary-General, in reply, that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to accept in principle this offer of his good offices in the search for an acceptable solution of the differences which exist between the Governments of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom regarding Cyprus.
Her Majesty's Government have noted the declaration of the leader of E.O.K.A. that his organisation would suspend its operations as soon as Archbishop Makarios was released. The Governor of Seychelles is today drawing the attention of the Archbishop to that declaration and to the statement which I am now making.
As the House knows, the Archbishop has been asked on many occasions whether he will make a public statement calling for the cessation of violence by E.O.K.A. He is now being asked whether in these new circumstances he is prepared to do so. If, as we hope, he makes a clear statement to this effect, a new situation will have been created. In that event, Her Majesty's Government will be ready to bring to an end his detention in Seychelles. There can be no question at this stage of his return to Cyprus.

Mr. Callaghan: The Opposition are glad that the Government have come round to the proposal, made more than once, that this dispute should be referred to N.A.T.O. in so far as it relates to the international relationships between our country, Turkey and Greece and the strategic value of the island. Where do the people of Cyprus come into this? At what stage are we to discuss with them, now that violence has, at any rate, for


the moment, ceased, the implementation of the Radcliffe proposals?
Can the Colonial Secretary bring himself to take this one step, now that violence has for the moment ceased, of bringing the Archbishop—[Horn. MEMBERS: "No."]—into discussions on the implementation of the Radcliffe proposals, so that we may bring permanently to an end the situation that exists there, as in the 12 months since the Archbishop was deposed the Government have found nobody to take his place with whom they can discuss these proposals?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman's information about the cessation of violence is not correct, because a very brutal murder took place yesterday. The hon. Gentleman asked why the international aspects of this situation had not been referred to N.A.T.O. before. This new procedure of N.A.T.O. was recently adopted and, for the first time, provides this machinery of conciliation; and we are glad to take advantage of it.
In reply to the request of the Secretary-General that all three Governments should take what steps they can to secure the creation of a favourable atmosphere for carrying out the procedure that Lord Ismay proposes, I have stated that if the Archbishop makes the statement asked for he can be released from the Seychelles.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's second question, some aspects of these matters are clearly separate issues, either internal to Cyprus, or international, but there is a very large range where the issues are common to both and where the distinction is blurred. In those circumstances, it seems wiser to Her Majesty's Government to tackle one at a time.
Of course, I have made it clear that the Radcliffe constitution could and should be discussed, but our first talk must be —in the matter of consultation—not to prejudice the results of the N.A.T.O. conciliation. When we see more clearly how the work of conciliation is going, then we shall be better able to turn our attention to the internal problems with more hope of success.

Mr. Clement Davies: While welcoming the generous offer made by Lord Ismay and the reply of Her Majesty's Government, and although no one has had a

wider experience of negotiation than Lord Ismay, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the last part of his original statement is likely to advance the end which all of us, including the right hon. Gentleman himself, would like to see achieved?
The right hon. Gentleman has drawn the distinction between what is happening internally and internationally, but it is internally that the trouble is and the people most concerned are the people of Cyprus. Does he not think that the time has now come when he should invite the Archbishop to a conference, at a place to be agreed between them, when the only question to be discussed will be the Radcliffe Report? Is not that the most likely solution?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have made it clear that in our view the first step in consultation should be through the agency of the N.A.T.O. Council, in the international field. I make it equally clear that I recognise that there must be discussions about the Radcliffe Report, which the House as a whole accepted and welcomed. The first step that the Archbishop can take towards the restoration of tranquillity in Cyprus is to do as we have asked. He will then be released and will be completely free to go wherever he chooses, save to Cyprus.

Mr. H. Fraser: In view of rumours to the contrary, can my right hon. Friend say whether the Governor, Sir John Harding, is completely in accord with this policy?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, absolutely. Any suggestion to the contrary is quite untrue. It is with his full encouragement and because of the results of his courage and imagination that we are now able to take this new initiative.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am sure that the Secretary of State realises that the whole House and the country think that there is now a new opportunity to take a fresh initiative. He will also know that Her Majesty's Government, together with the Governments of Turkey and Greece, and other Governments, joined together in the United Nations and passed a resolution urging the parties to resume negotiations.
Welcoming the intervention of N.A.T.O. at long last, may I ask the Secretary of


State whether he does not think that this is a new chance to begin discussions on the internal situation on the basis of the Radcliffe proposals and that the way to do that is to bring Makarios and other representatives to London to begin discussions? Does he not realise that if this opportunity is lost, it may not return?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The best step we can take about Archbishop Makarios is to draw his attention to the quite definite statement made by the leader of E.O.K.A., that his organisation is ready to order suspension of its operations at once if the Ethnarch Makarios were to be released——

Mr. Callaghan: To resume negotiations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: —I am dealing with one point at a time.
As I said in my statement, if the Archbishop will make a public statement calling for the cessation of violence, then Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to bring his detention to an end. I cannot believe that any responsible Government could accept less from someone in the position of influence which the Ethnarch occupies and ask less of him than to make a statement of that kind. I also very much hope that he and others concerned will recognise that international opinion as a whole will recognise it as reasonable that such a statement should be made.

Mr. Callaghan: As the Colonial Secretary has quoted a part of E.O.K.A.'s statement, if the Archbishop associates himself with a suspension of violence is the right hon. Gentleman then ready to facilitate the resumption of negotiations with the Archbishop, which was the other part of the condition which E.O.K.A. made? If not, what possible use does he think it is appealing to the Archbishop, as he has done many times before, when he is under duress?
Does not this policy represent a retreat from what the right hon. Gentleman told us earlier? Did he not say earlier that once terrorism was at an end, he would proceed with discussion on the implementation of the Radcliffe proposals? Is he not now telling us that in addition to the suspension of terrorism there must be discussion by N.A.T.O., and that only

after that will he proceed to discuss terms of the implementation of the Radcliffe proposals? Does he realise that if he does not go further than he has gone this afternoon the country will believe that he has muffed another opportunity?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept any of the conclusions of the hon. Member, which are based upon an inaccurate and light-hearted approach to this matter.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we are ready to give and take on these matters, is it in order for the Colonial Secretary to impute to any hon. Member of this House—on whatever side he sits—that his approach is of such a character that he is not concerned about the fact that since we had the last truce over 150 people have been killed in the island?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the Colonial Secretary say that. He said that the approach of the hon. Member was light-hearted. I do not find the word "light-hearted" in the index of prohibited words. There is nothing wrong in being as light-hearted as we can on these grave subjects.

Sir T. Moore: Following the last three supplementary questions, and with particular reference to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. H. Fraser), will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the man on the spot generally knows best, particularly when he is a wise, good and humane man like Sir John Harding? Would it not, therefore, be in the best interests of all concerned to trust to his judgment in these matters?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I certainly agree that no one knows more of these matters than Sir John Harding, and that no one could be more safely trusted. I think that the best possible results come when —as here—a Governor of his calibre and the British Government are in complete harmony.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: In view of what the Secretary of State said about the Archbishop, will he not now permit people in this country who may have influence with the Archbishop to communicate with him and, if necessary, to see him? Secondly, is he aware of the


lamentable effect which his statement will have unless he says one word about the response which the Government of Cyprus will make to the new situation? He has told us that he hopes that the Archbishop will denounce the use of violence, but what is the Secretary of State going to do about stopping the violence in Cyprus in response?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As the hon. Member knows, there still can be communications with the Archbishop—[HON. MEMBERS: "No"]— though they are subject to censorship. Indeed, that is essential. If the Archbishop grants the very simple request made to him, he will be perfectly free to receive communications from any part of the world personally, orally, or in writing from anybody he likes—but not to go to Cyprus.
As to any action which the Government of Cyprus may take in response to the new initiative of E.O.K.A.—I suppose the hon. Member has in mind the cessation of operations in Cyprus, or the question of the suspension of the death penalty, and matters of that kind—I hope that the House will bear with me if I answer fully but as briefly as I can upon these two points.
I would ask everybody to bear in mind that the E.O.K.A. statement was merely an offer of a suspension, and that there was last night another very brutal murder by E.O.K.A. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All we know is that the victim in this case was a former member of E.O.K.A. who had recently made a valuable and wholly voluntary statement about E.O.K.A. terrorists, so I think that that is a reasonable assumption.
As for the operations, clearly the Governor and the Government of Cyprus cannot allow—under the cover of an offer of suspension—the chance of the regrouping and rearming of the hard-hit terrorist groups.
On the question of the death sentence, which, I believe, the hon. Member had in mind, in none of the six cases of men under sentence of death have appeals been heard in the Supreme Court, which has yet to fix dates for hearings. It will only be after all the processes of appeal have been completed that the cases may come before the Governor, who will then have to consider all aspects of each case before

reaching his decision. The Governor has informed me that he would be prepared to consider the cessation of terrorist activities as a relevant consideration of a public nature to be taken into account in the exercise of the prerogative, although it would not be the only or the decisive factor in cases of violence against the person.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: On the international aspect of this matter, can my right hon. Friend say, first, whether he will bear in mind the proposal of the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, that there might be a solution along the lines of common citizenship in view of the difficulty of reconciling the Hellenic aspirations with the multinational needs of British sovereignty?
Secondly, can we take it that at the end of the day, when violence has ceased and peace has been restored, the Archbishop will not be denied the opportunity of graduating, like Pandit Nehru and Mr. Nkrumah, to the highest office of State?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is quite open to Her Majesty's Government to consider any possible approach in the statements we are making to N.A.T.O. As for the future of the Archbishop, it is not for me to look into the history that may lie ahead. The first step seems to be to facilitate his release from Seychelles, a simple way of doing which I have announced today.

Mr. Hector Hughes: In view of the Minister's reference to the Governor of Cyprus, does he agree at the outset that the problems of Cyprus, being constitutional, are primarily matters for the statesman rather than the soldier? If, as has been freely stated in the newspapers during the last few days, there is a conflict of plan between the statesman and the soldier, does not the Minister agree that the soldier should give way in order to provide a means of resolving the outstanding difficulties, and that this matter should no longer be determined upon a military basis but rather upon a basis of statesmanship?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. and learned Member will get it into his head that there is no conflict of any kind, and that Her Majesty's Government and the Governor are in complete agreement.

Mr. Sharpies: Can my right hon. Friend clarify the position about the N.A.T.O. proposals and say whether this means that we are handing over the destiny and future of Cyprus to an outside body?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir, that is not true at all. The purpose of N.A.T.O. 's exercise of good offices is to reach a solution which is acceptable to all concerned. There is no question whatever of an imposed settlement or of arbitration, and the British responsibility to the Cypriot people remains quite unaffected.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Colonial Secretary has said that if the Archbishop were to make the statement for which the right hon. Gentleman asks a new situation would be created. Has not a new situation already been created by the declaration of the leader of E.O.K.A.? Whereas before then there was a case, in my opinion, for linking the release of the Archbishop with an appeal to end terrorism on his part, has it now the same significance? Is it not the case that only the imprisonment of the Archbishop stands between us and the end of terrorism in Cyprus?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that the conclusion which the right hon. Gentleman has reached will be shared by the family of the man who was murdered yesterday.

Hon. Members: Cheap.

Mr. Gaitskell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his remark, which is apparently a deliberate attempt to twist the facts of the situation, is really unworthy of him in this extremely important situation? Is it not a fact that the leader of E.O.K.A. has said that as soon as the Archbishop is released terrorism will be stopped? What is the purpose of insisting that the Archbishop himself must now make the appeal for which he was originally asked when, if he is released, terrorism will stop?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Because it is our view that if the Archbishop makes such a statement that would be the largest single factor leading to the end of terrorism in the island. The statement made by E.O.K.A., which has been repeatedly

twisted, does not refer to the stopping of hostilities. It refers to an offer of suspension, and, as I have been obliged to point out, that suspension did not seem to apply yesterday.
It appears to us to be entirely reasonable that the Archbishop should make a contribution which it lies in his own hands to make. I have given a solemn undertaking, on behalf of the British Government, that we will then take steps to bring about his release from the Seychelles and give him absolute freedom to go anywhere except, for the time being, to Cyprus. On that, I would point out to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen that most informed commentators, in the Press and elsewhere, of many shades of view, accept my view, and the Governor's view, that at this stage the Archbishop should, not be allowed to return to Cyprus itself.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Ballot for notices of Motions

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Education

Mr. George Thomas: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 5th April, I shall call attention to the needs of the education services, and move a Resolution.

Secondary Education

Mr. Michael Stewart: I must ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. It had been my intention to announce that on Friday, 5th April, I would call attention to the need for an inquiry into the organisation of secondary education and move a Resolution, which, in the unlikely event of my hon. Friend's Motion not taking the entire day, I may yet do. However, I shall otherwise support with much interest the Motion which he will be submitting.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member withdraws from the position that he has secured as the result of the Ballot, another number can be drawn.

Mr. Stewart: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I would rather hold to the position I occupy.

United Nations Specialised Agencies

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 5th April, I shall call attention to the work of the Specialised Agencies of the United Nations Organisation, and move a Resolution.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means and on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) and that, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) any such Private Business may be taken after Nine o'clock— [Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.6 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short Bill, but I cannot conscientiously say that it is also a simple one. It is, however, an important Bill, though short, because it is designed to facilitate the work of credit insurance. As the House will know, it is nearly 40 years since the State first entered the field of credit insurance in 1919, and 27 years since the Export Credits Guarantee Department became an independent Department. In those years the business has grown greatly, both in volume and importance, in the country's export effort, particularly in these post-war years. If I may indicate the comparative figures of exports covered by the Department, for the financial year 1939–40 the estimated figure was £50 million. In 1949 that had grown to a figure of £260 million, and in the financial year 1956–57 to an estimated figure of no less than £ 500 million. The Export Credits Guarantee Department now covers 13 per cent. of the total exports of the United Kingdom.
The Bill deals with three separate and distinct points and, in order to explain them to the House, I think that I must briefly indicate, or perhaps I should say remind the House, of the pattern of the existing Acts from 1949 to 1952 on this subject. The Export Guarantees Act, 1949, provided for two forms of guarantee; what is known as the commercial guarantee under Section 1 and what is known as the special guarantee under Section 2.
The commercial guarantees are guarantees in connection with the export and so on of goods and services, given in consultation with the Advisory Council and with the consent of the Treasury, to encourage trade with places outside the United Kingdom. Though they are known as commercial guarantees, they do, of course, cover political risks as well as the commercial risks. The arrangement under which these commercial guarantees are given are generally known


as credit insurance schemes. They are operated on a commercial basis with the help of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, and we are grateful for its valued and expert services in this regard.
There is a maximum permitted liability under these commercial guarantees of £750 million, and the latest available figure, for 28th February last year, was £368 million. I mention that because 90 per cent. of the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department is in fact done under Section 1 in respect of these commercial guarantees, and no problem arises in the whole of that field. The problem arises in the narrower though also important field of the special guarantees, which are those given under Section 2 of the 1949 Act. They also require the consent of the Treasury, but they do not give rise to the necessity for consultation with the Advisory Council.
The special guarantees under Section 2 are themselves of two sorts. The first type is for the encouragement of trade, and that type of special guarantee is, in effect, a bridge to Section 1 cover, or given on an experimental basis. The second type of special guarantee is for rendering economic assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom. In respect of both types of special guarantee the criterion is the national interest.
There is also a maximum liability fixed for the Section 2 guarantees by the Act of 1952 at £150 million; that is all of them, all of the special guarantees under Section 2. It is in respect of this figure that the first problem arises which it is sought to deal with by this Bill. The present position, that is to say at 28th February last, regarding the special guarantees is that the figure for firm commitments amounts to £72,800,000 and the figure for contingent liabilities amounts to £72,700,000. Therefore, as the House will see from the addition of those two figures, if all the contingent liabilities were suddenly taken up, the Export Credits Guarantee Department would be now within £4,500,000 of its statutory limit under Section 2. That is an unlikely contingency, I fully grant. Nevertheless, without an increase in the permitted maximum liability under Section 2, the Department might soon find itself unable to offer further cover because of the opera

tion of this £150 million limit, and the effect of that would be, of course, serious in this context.
In regard to the need of these Section 2 guarantees, these special guarantees, the Export Credits Guarantee Department is at present offering only very limited cover in respect of exports to Middle East countries. We may, however, in the near future wish to prepare the way for full cover, by offering more generous cover under Section 2, and that is the concept of the bridge which I mentioned a moment ago.
To take another point, large dollar market orders have recently loomed large as candidates for Section 2 cover, and some of these may go forward. So, in summary on this point, if the Department was completely prevented from offering Section 2 cover, much valuable export business could be lost. Before leaving this aspect of the matter, perhaps I may make this observation in regard to the financial position, so that it is clear to the House beyond a peradventure. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is not, by Clause 1 of this Bill, asking for permission to spend money, but only to incur additional liabilities, and, of course, it will only result in the expenditure of money if the transactions covered result in a loss and the guarantees must be implemented; that is, a loss to the exporter.

Mr. Ronald Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making so formidable a case for the need for doing this that he is throwing me into some doubt as to the measurement of the additional figure which he requires. He is putting a much stronger case now than would be necessary to support an additional £100 million. It may be that, in the course of his observations, he may give reasons why the measurement has been fixed at that figure, and I intervene only to invite him to do that as he proceeds with his opening speech, as that may make it unnecessary for me to make any comments later.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am much obliged to the hon. Member, not least for his implied tribute to my own moderation in this regard. The figure in the Bill is fixed at £250 million because we consider that to be a realistic and proper estimate, having regard to the present


position and the ratio, as I say, of the firm commitments and contingent liabilities to the permitted maximum liability. It seems to us that £250 million is the right figure to put before the House as not being an extravagantly large figure, but also a realistic figure, which I would hope would mean that we would not need to trouble the House very soon again in the same context.
I would also say for the information of the House, on the point that this is not a request for the expediture of money but only for the raising of the permitted liability, that since the special guarantee scheme was introduced in 1949, the Department has more than covered its claims by the premiums earned, and there has, therefore, been no net expenditure of public money in this context. That is the first point of the Bill, and the most important one, dealt with by Clause 1.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman leaves that point, could he explain for the benefit of the House precisely how the first kind of special guarantee under Section 1 of the 1949 Act differs from the commercial guarantee under Section 1? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to the conception of a bridge between the two. Will he explain what is really the nature of the difference between the guarantees in Section 1 and 2?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I think that the hon. Member, with his well-known legal acumen and experience, will see what the statutory difference is by looking at the 1949 Act. In that Act, he will see that, in respect of the ordinary commercial guarantee in Section 1, there is an obligation to consult the Advisory Council, and, therefore, it must be an appropriate commercial proposition in their opinion for the commercial guarantee under Section 1. Under Section 2, for the special guarantee, there is not the same statutory necessity to consult the Advisory Council. There is the criterion of the national interest, and the consent of the Treasury is still required. But it is therefore, possible to embark on a rather wider range under a special guarantee, more particularly in respect of the two categories which I mentioned a moment ago, either as a preliminary to possible extension of commercial guarantees thereafter, or, as it were, on an experimental

basis. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to make that clear.

Mr. H. Rhodes: It is as clear as mud.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If I may now come to the second of the three points with which the Bill deals, the second point which is covered by Clause 2 is also concerned with the special guarantee, but, in these cases, exclusively with the second type of special guarantee; that is to say, those made for the purpose of rendering economic assistance to other countries.
There is no doubt, I think, that the basic intention of Sections 2 and 3 of the 1949 Act was to enable the Export Credits Guarantee Department to continue to provide economic assistance to overseas countries by making loans tied to the purchases of the United Kingdom goods and services. Unfortunately, a technical difficulty has arisen in carrying out Parliament's intentions. This is where the Bill becomes a little complex, and I ask the indulgence of the House if I try to put it as clearly and briefly as I can.
If hon. Members will be good enough to look at Section 3 of the 1949 Act, they will see that that Section provides that the Export Credits Guarantee Department may acquire and dispose of securities which it has guaranteed, and it also provides for the method of receipt and payment. This Section is used by Her Majesty's Government to give economic assistance to overseas Governments for the purchase of British goods and services, and it has been used within the recollection of the House in the cases of Pakistan, Iran and Yugoslavia. The procedure thus prescribed by Section 3 is, in effect, as follows. First, the overseas Government issues its promissory notes. Then, the Department guarantees these promissory notes, which it then acquires. The proceeds are paid into a special account and, out of that special account, the British contractors are paid That is the scheme of the Section 3 procedure.
In the case of the Pakistan Agreement in 1954, certain doubts arose as to the legality of the procedure which was actually followed in that case. What in effect happened was that the Department was giving its guarantees—to that transaction, for example—after acquiring


the promissory notes instead of before acquiring them, as contemplated by Section 3. In other words, it was guaranteeing securities which it had acquired instead of acquiring securities which it had guaranteed, which is the contemplation of the Section. A revised procedure was devised, because of that difficulty.
This is all really on a technicality. I have already made clear to the House the intention of Section 3; the difficulties which have arisen are procedural technicalities which the Clause is seeking to set right. I am sorry that it is technical and complicated, but it cannot be otherwise. In these circumstances, a revised procedure was devised in this form to meet that point. First of all the promissory notes are issued by the oversea Government. These promissory notes are then guaranteed by the Department Having been guaranteed, the promissory notes are then handed back to the over-sea Government and, at that stage, they are finally acquired by the Department. By that revised procedure, the technicalities of the Act are complied with and the difficulties which I have mentioned in respect of the Pakistan Agreement are removed
Although this revised procedure complies with Section 3 of the 1949 Act, it is obviously unsatisfactory in that it is highly artificial. It is artificial because, on that procedure, the promissory notes are guaranteed as it were in the air and at no stage does any third party hold the notes for value with the Department's guarantee. This revised procedure, which complies technically perhaps with the Act but is artificial and unsatisfactory, came under the scrutiny of the Public Accounts Committee, and it was agreed that this procedure was unsatisfactory; but it was pointed out to the Public Accounts Committee that legislation would be required if it were to be put right.
Now that we have had to come to the House to get powers to raise the maximum liability, it is proper that we should, in the context of export guarantees, seek to put this matter right. That is what Clause 2 seeks to do and is the genesis of the Clause. The Clause is designed to remove the artificiality of the procedure and to make it clear that the Department has power to enter into these economic assistance agreements which

are important politically as well as in the promotion of our export trade.
As to the effect of Clause 2, subsection (1) provides that, for the purpose of rendering economic assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom, the power to give guarantees shall include the power to make arrangements for facilitating the payment of sums which are payable to persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom or to their oversea subsidiaries. Subsection (2) provides that the Department may acquire securities created in pursuance of such arrangements, and may acquire securities without the necessity of prior guarantee. Both those subsections are retrospective, as obviously in the context they must be. Subsection (3) simply ensures that the amount paid for acquired securities in this way shall count against the maximum liability of Section 2 of the 1949 Act, as amended, of course, by Clause 1.
Perhaps I may now summarise the second point in this way: the giving of a guarantee has no necessary place in the giving of a loan. The procedure which I have described will be modified so that in the future the Department will simply acquire the security from the issuing Government instead of first guaranteeing it, handing it back and then acquiring it again. It is a change of procedure rather than of substance, although acquiring a security will still be related to an approved export transaction.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Before the Minister of State departs from Clause 2, will he say whether this procedure has been applied to any country other than Pakistan, Iran and Yugoslavia?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Section 2 economic assistance? I have not got in mind another case, but I will check that in the course of the proceedings. If there is another, I will, with the permission of the House, give it to the hon. Gentleman.
I can deal with the third point quite shortly. It is covered by Clause 3 and relates purely to a question of interest. It comes about in this way. In operating the economic assistance agreements under Section 2 of the 1949 Act, the Department, through the Acquisition of Guaranteed Securities Fund, borrows money from the Consolidated Fund at one rate, that is the rate fixed by the Treasury by reference to current


exchange interest rates, and lends it to the overseas Governments at another rate. The intention and the normal effect is that the difference between the two rates should constitute a small premium for the Department. This expectation has been somewhat affected by changes in the interest rates.
What has happened is that the rates paid by the Pakistani and Iranian Governments were fixed at 4 per cent. Since then, the rate charged to the Export Credits Guarantee Department by the Treasury has gone up to 4¾per cent, so it is now the wrong way round in that sense. This means that for the next two or three years there will be a deficiency in the Fund if the Treasury rate is maintained. The 1949 Act did not make provision for meeting such a deficiency. Clause 3, therefore, provides that such a deficiency may be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament. It applies only to agreements already entered into. In any future agreement it is intended to avoid such deficiencies by providing for a rate of interest which will vary with the rate charged to the Department by the Treasury.
The sums are not large. The estimated deficiency in 1957–58 will be £22,000; in 1958–59, £5,000; by 1959–60 and thereafter nil.

Mr. John Cronin: The right hon. Gentleman said that future loans made to countries overseas will be based on a variable rate of interest. What interest will there be in a given year? Will that be a satisfactory arrangement?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, I think so. It is obviously not a very sensible proposition that the Department should be lending money at a lower rate of interest than it borrows it, in order to make that operation possible. The obvious method of dealing with that is to link the rate of interest in that way. If we did not do that, I suppose the only alternative would be to cover ourselves so as to avoid the disagreeable possibility of a deficiency by putting the rate higher, which would be more unwelcome to the recipient: than a linked varying rate.

Mr. J. T. Price: So far as outstanding long-dated loans are concerned, this new procedure could not be applied to old contracts?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We cannot change a contract in mid-stream. That is why we are obliged to meet the deficiencies in that context out of moneys provided by Parliament. That, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) appreciates, is the genesis of Clause 3 of the Bill.
In conclusion, as the House will appreciate, this Bill is technical and complex, but it is both necessary and useful. It is designed to, and will in fact, assist the machinery and working of our export credit insurance and, thereby, help our export trade, which is the prop and stay of our whole economy. In those circumstances, I confidently hope that it will meet with unanimous acceptance by the House.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: First, I must congratulate the Minister of State on a most painstaking explanation of the Bill and on having got through his speech, so far as I could make out, without committing any major indiscretion.
I hope that the House will readily give this Bill a Second Reading and will then proceed to due examination of its details. Its main purpose, I think the Minister will agree, is to extend a bit further the scope of the export credits guarantee scheme. This E.C.G.D. venture has often been rightly held up to public admiration as a pioneering and shining example of successful public enterprise. I do not think that there would be any argument about that from hon. Members opposite. Despite what the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) may be about to say, I do not think that he would gainsay that.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: The right hon. Member is very kind to give way. It should be stated that the lesson the Department learned came from the history of private enterprise insurance extending over a hundred years.

Mr. Jay: I do not wish to be too controversial, especially at this stage, but, based on the experience of both public and private enterprise, I think that the Bill is a visible admission by the Government that, in the export trade, at any rate, Conservative freedom is not in itself enough. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—although in a rather veiled manner—that it was in 1929


and 1930 that the Department substantially assumed its present form. It was the Act of 1949 which launched the special system of guarantees with which we are mainly concerned.

Mr. Graham Page: To be fair, it should be said that it was Lord Swinton who devised the present system about 1929 and that the development from 1929 to 1931 was as a result of that.

Mr. Jay: It does not greatly matter, but I think it was finally perfected at that time. What I think is more interesting and substantial is that the Department has worked all these years as a direct Government Department, not even in the form of a public board or public commercial enterprise of that kind. That shows that the assumption we are all inclined to make that the separate Departmental form cannot operate successfully, like many other dogmas, is not necessarily correct.
As the Minister of State said, we arc mainly concerned with the special guarantees which had their genesis in the 1949 Act. They were divided as the right hon. and learned Gentleman also said, into two sorts. They were described by the Government when the 1952 Bill was introduced as covering
 a wide number of projects.
Examples were given of
 certain aspects of the dollar drive and such things as the export of herring to Poland. … "—[OFFIAL. REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol 496. c. 319.]
What "such things" as the export of herring to Poland may be, I do not know. On the basis of experience we have had since then perhaps we could have a little more information about how these special guarantees have worked in concrete terms.
I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could give some actual examples of what has been done. I think he said that the whole activities of the Department under the special guarantees had been profitable. That is to say, that up to now there has been a credit balance as a result of all the operations. I wonder whether we could know what total of exports has been covered by this part of the activities of the Department?
We were told by the Government in 1952 that, in addition to the dollar drive

—which, no doubt, was the most important objective—trade with "Iron Curtain" countries would also be included in these special guarantees. I take it that is still the rule and the objective. Does the increase that we are now asked to accept foreshadow or give evidence of a belief by the Government that trade with the "Iron Curtain" countries may be likely to increase? I cannot help remarking, in passing, that it is a little ironical, if that is the intention of the Government in this Bill, that our trade with those countries should still be subject to special embargoes which are having such a limiting effect. I hope that now, at least outside Government circles, it has become an uncontroversial question, the Minister is looking at that matter and that in the interests of our export trade generally something will be done to relax the embargo on trade with Russia and to remove altogether the now completely obsolete embargo on trade with China.
Clause 2, of which the Minister spoke in a most light-hearted manner—I think that light-hearted is a proper Parliamentary expression—is intended to make an honest woman of the Board of Trade, and to cast a sort of retrospective veil of respectability over some of its rather queer activities in recent years. It is really remarkable what goes on under the present Government. There seems to be no end to the revelations of irregularities and muddles from time to time.
I would have thought the story of the Swift aircraft would have been sufficient, but we also owe to the zeal of Sir Frank Tribe—who is certainly a great guardian of public morality the—discovery that the Board of Trade, through the E.C.G.D., has, in effect, been breaking the law in its operation of these export credits.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If, as I apprehend, the right hon. Member accepts that the intention of the 1949 Act was that these economic assistance agreements should be viable, whose fault was it if the 1949 Act was not framed in such a way as to make the intention possible of implementation?

Mr. Jay: Surely the Minister, as a lawyer—much more of a lawyer than I am—is not arguing that because an Act was not perfect we are all entitled to


break it? I am merely remarking that according to the Public Accounts Committee the Board of Trade acted in contravention of the Act.
Now we are told by the Public Accounts Committee that in March, 1954, the Board of Trade lent £10 million to, I understand, the Government of Pakistan by an agreement which was not really legally valid under the 1949 Act. The Public Accounts Committee, as far as I can discover, does not say that it was the Government of Pakistan, but I take it that this is the same transaction as that to which the right hon. and learned Member referred. Counsel's opinion was given to the Department in October, 1954, that the Board was acting contrary to the Act, but the Board continued—I do not know whether "light-heartedly" is the right word—drawing money out of the Consolidated Fund until July, 1955, when, in Sir Frank Tribe's words "they brought the situation to the notice of the Treasury". The Public Accounts Committee—I do not think that the Minister will dispute this—described this as "irregular"which is quite a strong word for the Committee to use, and expressed the hope that it would not happen again.
Apparently, in a later case, the export of locomotives to Iran, which, I am sure, was a healthy objective in itself, it appears that even the Treasury condoned the illegal, or, at any rate, dubiously legal, drawing of money, and the Public Accounts Committee described this as "somewhat disturbing". Indeed, it appears that even the Treasury, under the present Administration, is not altogether free from the atmosphere of laxity which seems to prevail. I must say that with the plethora of lawyers we have had in the Board of Trade in recent years, whatever happened in the sphere of economic policy I should have thought this kind of irregularity might have been avoided.
The Government now propose to legalise their past actions. Clause 2 tells us that Section 3 of the 1949 Act
shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect as if …
In fact, the Minister is asking us to validate the Government's past practice in a more sweeping fashion than even the marriage service is normally expected to do. He expects us to say that everything they did was legal although, in fact, it was not legal at the time. I do not

quarrel with that, but I think we might have had from the Minister at least an assurance such as the Public Accounts Committee seeks—that the Government do not intend in future to commit fresh irregularities which will be contrary to the law as we are now enacting it.
In Clause 3, we come across one of the odder consequences of the Government's dear money policy. I hope that I have correctly understood what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking us to do. The Export Credits Guarantee Department borrowed money, as I understand, from the Treasury at interest and proceeded, in effect, to buy securities from overseas Governments. It then found that under this dear money policy the interest which it had to pay the Treasury had risen above the yield on the security.
The Treasury ask for power to pay more money to the Department so that it may pay back to the Treasury a higher rate of interest. I think that is, in effect, what we are being asked to do. Here we see the Government hoist with the petard of their own dear money policy. They are put in a position in which many humble house purchasers have been during recent years.
I should like to ask the Minister whether it is necessary to proceed in this rather round-about manner, to compel the Department to pay a high rate of interest to the Treasury and then to hand out to the Department the money with which to do it. Would it not have been a simple alternative—this is the commonsense thought which occurs to one—to charge a lower rate of interest? There may be a good reason for this procedure, and I am not saying that I object to it, but perhaps we might be given a fuller explanation why the Government are acting in this apparently round-about manner.
I will make only two other points on the Bill. First, the Department had an unfortunate experience in trading with Brazil a few years ago and that spoilt its record, which had gone right back to 1929 or 1930 and in some senses beyond that, of having a credit balance on all its trading operations up to date. We should be told clearly whether what is called the cumulative balance at 31st March, 1956, of £4,780,000 from credit insurance, which I find in the official trading accounts


for the E.C.G.D.—that is to say, from the first part of the Department's activities—means that the Department has paid off all those losses due to the Brazilian transaction and now has a net credit in all its trading operations from the start.
The Minister told us that on the second branch of its activities, the special guarantees, it had shown a net credit, and it therefore appears that we can say that on the activities of both kinds, despite the unfortunate Brazilian experience, all losses have been paid off and that there is now a net credit balance.
Secondly, in giving a blessing to the Bill, as I hope the House will— and it will undoubtedly make constructive suggestions on how the Department's operations may be still further improved—I hope that we shall not assume that we are doing something for our export trade which makes it unnecessary to take other steps as well. I hope that a result of the Bill will not be that we shall be complacent about the present position of British export trade. The increase in our exports over the last five years or so has been only a very few per cent a year
I think it is true that the U.K. exports today in volume are only about 15 per cent. above what they were in 1950. That is a much smaller rise in volume than almost any of the other great industrial countries have achieved in those years, and it follows from that, and it is true, that our share of world exports has been falling and is still falling now.
While we give a blessing to this scheme, therefore, I hope that the Government will in no way be complacent about the present state of our export trade or think that these measures are a substitute for other kinds of stimulus and encouragement which ought to be given.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: May I start with two tributes, one to my right hon. and learned Friend for his extremely lucid explanation of a rather difficult Bill, and particularly for his explanation of Clause 2, and the second to the Export Credits Guarantee Department itself for its great efficiency and its successful trading? From a small experience of that Department, I can personally testify to the great willingness of the staff there to make their policies fit the facts of any specific case.
I have found greater flexibility from that Department than one normally finds from the ordinary insurance company or the banks. At the same time, there is no carefree generosity about their quotations. They are a commercial undertaking and they have to fix their premiums and gauge the price of the service which they are offering to the public so as to expand the business, as it has been expanded for these 40 years past, at the same time not making.a loss on it.
They have no competitors against whom to gauge the price, because in many respects the Department is a monopoly. For example, there is no other institution which will cover war risks. It is therefore all the more commendable that the Department has been able to calculate its premiums so as to produce a body of satisfied customers, if I may so describe them, proved by the considerable expansion of business over the past years.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the Department deals with two forms of insurance or guarantee. For the sake of brevity, they are spoken of by reference to the 1949 Act as Section 1 or Section 2 guarantees. Section 1 guarantees are the ordinary commercial transactions entered into on the advice of the Export Credits Advisory Council, and the Section 2 guarantees, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, are the extraordinary guarantees which are considered to be of national importance.
I am not quite clear whether one can make that clear-cut distinction, and though I may be showing crass ignorance in asking the following question of my right hon. and learned Friend, I will nevertheless ask it. Can one point to any particular transaction and say, "That is a Section 1 transaction "or" That is a Section 2 transaction"? Perhaps I may explain it by example. Suppose an exporter comes to E.C.G.D. with some proposition, asking for a quotation. It is an ordinary commercial transaction, which they would cover to the ordinary extent of the 85 per cent. or the 90 per cent. as the case may be. Let us suppose it is a capital construction work in some foreign country. A quotation of 85 per cent. is offered and the exporter says, "I cannot undertake this unless I have 100 per cent. insurance on it. It is just that 15 per cent. extra that I am worried


about. That is the retention money. When I have finished the work, it is just that 15 per cent. I am not likely to get, because I cannot stop work in order to force payment."
Is it possible then for E.C.G.D. to say, "The Government think that 'this is work of national importance. We will carry the 85 per cent. under Section 1, and we will carry the 15 per cent. under Section 2"? I want to know whether there is a sort of mixed policy of that nature. Or must they say that the whole of such a guarantee must come under the Section 2—the limit for which we are intending to increase by this Bill? I would have hoped that there could be some way of making mixed guarantees in that way so that Section 2 would be underwriting, as it were, a part of a Section 1 guarantee. I may remind hon. Members, perhaps, that, in talking of Section 1 and Section 2, I refer to the 1949 Act.
I have two further points. It is only residents in the United Kingdom who can obtain the benefits of this type of guarantee. The 1951 Act extended the benefits to subsidiary companies; that is to say, companies, often operating overseas but controlled from this country—controlled by a United Kingdom resident. It is common knowledge that if a merchant wants to trade through a company in the Colonies or the Commonwealth the very last thing he will do is to have that company controlled from the United Kingdom; in fact, he goes to great pains not to have it so controlled, because if it is controlled from here all the United Kingdom tax laws come down round his ears.
As I read the 1951 Act, it does not give the benefits of the export credit guarantee policies to the normal colonial and Commonwealth company of United Kingdom origin, if I can so put it. I should have hoped that it would, and unless my right hon. and learned Friend gives me a shattering reason why we cannot extend it in that way, I hope that this Bill, by an Amendment made at a later stage, may include the United Kingdom merchants who are operating by, as it were, independent companies in the Colonies and the Commonwealth. We all know under what stress they are working with regard to tax problems, and if they

cannot also get the benefit of E.C.G.D. it puts them in a worse position still.
My second point is this. Is it intended to use E.C.G.D. guarantees deliberately for export steering? It was acknowledged, I think, in debates on previous export guarantee Bills that these policies have been used deliberately for steering exports into the dollar market. I am not sure how that is done. I am not sure whether it is that guarantees are offered on doubtful dollar transactions but refused on other doubtful transactions, or whether the steering is done by offering a greater percentage cover on exports to the dollar markets; or done by charging a lower premium. Is it a deliberate steering policy, and, if so, how is it done? I would have hoped that all those sort of methods are, and could be, used for steering exports into particular markets.
As my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned, there are certain markets into which we may wish to steer exports during the next year or two. In particular, he mentioned the Middle East. Our maintenance of exports to the Middle East may need some very cut-throat competition by our exporters, and they may well be unwilling to undertake that unless they have very favourable terms of guarantee. Then, again, with the European Common Market coming along, it may be necessary to steer exports there, at any rate in the initial stages of breaking into the European market. I would have hoped that if this steering policy is adopted the £ 100 million, to which figure the Bill increases the limit, would not wholly be used for steering exports in either of those two directions which I have mentioned.
There is one important field upon which E.C.G.D. should be concentrated at present, and that is in connection with exports and economic assistance to our new Commonwealth countries—our Colonies which have just developed into Commonwealth countries, or which will so develop. I believe that E.C.G.D. could fill the gap left by the withdrawal of Colonial Development Corporation assistance from those Commonwealth countries. That subject has been discussed here on several occasions recently. In particular, it was discussed both here and in another place during the debates on the Ghana Independence Bill. During the debates in this House I ventured the


suggestion that much could be done through E.C.G.D. to take the place of the Colonial Development Corporation grants.
My right hon. and learned Friend, in his introduction of this Bill, said that there could be economic assistance through the Section 2 guarantees to Governments outside this country. Indeed, it is just the sort of economic assistance which was recently given to Pakistan. It has seemed to me that the continuation of anything in the form of colonial grants was rather repugnant to the idea of the independence of our new Commonwealth countries. These countries have become independent because both they and we believe that they can stand alone politically and, at any rate partly, economically.
There is not the slightest doubt that there are great possibilities for capital development in those new Commonwealth countries, and that they would get plenty of financial support for capital investment from this country if it were not for two anxieties. One is the fear of a sudden collapse of a raw material market, and the other is an anxiety about—let us be frank— the business morality of the indigenous traders.
We can all remember the situation when the wool market in Australia collapsed in 1952, but that was as nothing compared with what might happen with the collapse of the cocoa market in Ghana, the collapse of the rubber and tin market in Malaya after Malaya becomes an independent State, or—a different type of contingency perhaps—the withdrawal of the naval base from Singapore. Because of political and economic contingencies of that kind, there is a reluctance for private capital to go into our new Commonwealth countries. I believe that if there were some cushion, which E.C.G.D. can provide, against those risks there would be plenty of capital ready to go into those countries.

Mr. J. T. Price: is the hon. Gentleman directing his remarks to the provision of capital in the form of finance or in the form of capital goods exported from this country? What we are discussing today is, surely, machinery for facilitating, encouraging and expanding the export of British goods, and we are not talking about the export of capital at the moment.

Mr. Page: The investment of capital in the production of goods in this country for export to those countries is the type of investment of capital to which I was referring. That is one type.
Perhaps I might take another example from Ghana, which might come under Section 2. Ghana could offer this country promissory notes for the cost of construction of the Volta River Scheme. It is, perhaps, a very large project, but it might be undertaken by E.C.G.D. guaranteeing those promissory notes. It is an extreme example, but it is a possibility under the Section 2 type of transaction, and it is not an out-of-the-way possibility. After all, we have done the same thing for Iran in the purchase of locomotives; we have taken Iran's promissory notes and guaranteed them, and set a fund aside in a special bank account from which Iran can draw to buy those locomotives. That seems to me to be the sort of assistance which our new Commonwealth countries require and which would greatly help their development.
If we consider it our mission to bring our Colonies one by one to political independence, we must realise that during that post-independence, transitional period we still have a certain amount of economic responsibility. In the recent debates there has been a searching for some agency through which our responsibilities could be undertaken and our evident duties exercised. I believe that E.C.G.D. could provide that agency.
In those debates, there was also a searching for a medium through which the older Commonwealth nations could, in partnership with us, assist in the development of the new Commonwealth nations. I foresee something of this kind. If E.C.G.D. were providing economic assistance or commercial guarantees for development of a new Commonwealth country, the older Commonwealth countries might have organisations similar to E.C.G.D. through which the United Kingdom E.C.G.D. could unload part of the contingent liability. There could be a partnership of that sort in the development of the Commonwealth.
I am sure that the House has great faith in the Export Credits Guarantee Department. What I am advocating is that we should use it where it can be of great value, that we should deliberately steer


our exports and our economic assistance to our new Commonwealth countries and to the development of Colonies into Commonwealth countries, both by long-term guarantees for capital construction work and by short-term guarantees for the consumer markets which are produced by the wages resulting from those capital construction works. I am one who believes that in the past there have been very great developments in the Colonies and Commonwealth but that there could be still greater developments. If we in this country do not make certain that there are those greater developments in the future there, then there will be very little future for us here.

5.7 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: I should like, first, to congratulate the Minister on a very lucid explanation of Clause 2 of the Bill. I should have been glad, however, if the Minister had gone to a little more trouble to explain one or two of the improvements in policy which are to take effect in April this year, because such an explanation might have covered one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), when he mentioned the possibility of providing cover for 85 per cent. on the first part and 15 per cent. on the second. I understand that after 1st April it will be possible to get cover of 95 per cent. on certain specified risks.
I understand that increased facilities are to be given in the lengthening of the term within which credit is given. In this, I have one or two observations to make, and I hope that the Minister will give me an answer when he replies to the debate. I wish to quote the case of a constituent who said to me, "I am a machinery manufacturer. I have just been to South America to try to sell my machines, but I find that people there do not want them, although the machines are good ones, because they are buying from Germany on the basis of six and seven years' credit". I should like the Minister to explode that notion if it is not true. Inquiries I have made lead me to the opinion that it is not true at all.
I believe that the credit facilities given in this country are as good as, if not better, than those given in any other part of the world. But we have to define the difference here and in Germany in the

way in which credit is obtained. Here, if a trader or exporter goes to the bank with a guarantee from E.C.G.D., the bank gives him facilities on a good risk. If, on 1st April, E.C.G.D. will give facilities up to two years, then in this country we shall have credit facilities equal to any in the world.
In Germany, it is rather different, because I understand that there is an organisation there especially for giving credit facilities and advances to exporters. A number of banks jointly called the Ausfuhrkredit have arisen, backed by the Bank Deutsche Lander. But it is interesting to note that during the last six months there has been a reduction all the way down through these institutions right to the institution known as "Hermes", which is the comparable organisation in Germany to the Export Credits Guarantee Department here.
I understand that in August of last year the credit guarantee organisation, known as "Hermes", reduced its maximum coverage from 90 to 80 per cent. The Ausfuhrkredit followed by reducing the proportion of credit it would give on an export order from 80 to 60 per cent. I understand that, as recently as the end of last month, the Bank Deutsche Lander reduced its discount facilities to the Ausfuhrkredit.
Does the Minister think that this means that the Germans at one time were offering long-term credit because they were hungry to get the orders and now that they are not hungry to get orders they are scaling down the credit facilities that they allowed? That is the kind of thing that the British manufacturer would like to know now. We want more information coming from the Export Credits Guarantees Corporation in the way of statements giving particulars of credit facilities given to business organisations in other countries.
E.C.G.D. is doing a first-class job, but I think that the parent body, the Board of Trade, should encourage it a little more. I remember that when we were in office we were staggered to find, for instance, that the servants of the Export Credit Guarantees Corporation had to walk and take buses and had no transport facilities of their own. These are little things, but they are very important.
It looks to me as if our credit facilities now are better than they have ever


been. While I have been critical, during part of the time that the Government have been in office, on the subject of the reduction in credit facilities, nevertheless I believe that there has been no diminution of credit facilities for genuine exporters at any time since the Government took over the reins, backed by the enlightened policy of E.C.G.D.
With these few comments I conclude by asking the Minister to give us a brief picture of the sort of facilities that are in existence elsewhere, including those that apply to Germany, and whether he can tell us whether the Germans are being given facilities by the American export banks for exports to South America. If he can give us information on these few points, I do not think that there is any question about giving the Bill a Second Reading.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. E. H. C. Leather: I will detain the House for only a very few minutes. I should not have spoken at all had it not been for the perfectly appalling suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who has now left the Chamber. Before he left, I told him that I thought his suggestions were appalling and that I would try to undo some of the damage.
I must, as I have always done in these debates—and this is, I think, the fourth in which I have taken part—declare my very large personal interest in this matter. May I say first, following the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes)——

Mr. Rhodes: I am not a right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Leather: That is a mistake which should be put right. My experience is exactly the same as his, and, if I may, I will take this opportunity to pay a tribute to the present Comptroller-General of Export Credits Guarantee Department, because I think that he has established a co-operation and an understanding, particularly with his counterparts in Germany, such as we have never had before, and which is of very great value indeed to British exporters. I should like to have that on the record, because this has been very much his personal contribution.
There are two short points I want to make. This is the third or fourth occasion that I have been on my feet in this

House during the last few years when we have been raising the maximum limits of liability. I cannot help feeling that it is rather comic solemnly to take up the time of the House of Commons every few years to discuss something which we all know perfectly well is sheer fiction. The figures of these hundreds of millions are quite meaningless, as anyone who has bothered to read the export credit policy knows.
While I am all in favour of having opportunities to discuss the work of this Department, I would point out that the size of its growth can be easily ascertained by looking at the premium figures and the insurance turnover figures. These limited liabilities are obtained by the simple process of writing down 50 per cent of what every exporter thinks his annual turn-over will be. It is utter fiction. The risk of any exporter losing 50 per cent. on any one year's turn-over at one go is pretty remote, and the risk of the whole lot losing 50 per cent. at one go is so remote as to be not worth talking about. I think that the Minister might for the sake of using our time more intelligently look at this method of accounting these maximum credit liabilities, because they are a complete fiction and not very satisfactory.
With regard to the speech of my hon. Friend who has gone elsewhere, I hope and pray that the last thing the Government will do is solemnly to tell us that export credits are to be used for economic assistance to under-developed territories in the Commonwealth. There are very few people in this House—I can say it without conceit who can get more passionate over the need for this Government to do more on the lines of economic assistance for under-developed territories than I can, but this is not the way to do it. I was shocked when one of my right hon. Friends from this Box a few weeks ago solemnly put forward this suggestion.
To argue that granting insurances on capital goods to Ghana, for example, is part of our great policy to assist the capital development of Ghana is quite fantastic. The same Department in the same way grants great insurances for capital goods to the United States, and by the same argument Ministers could say that this is part of Britain's policy of economic aid to the poor depressed Americans, or the Russians or the Germans for that matter. It is really standing export credits on their head. I


do not know where the idea came from. I was shocked when the Minister concerned brought up the idea a few months ago, and I am certain that he had been very badly briefed. I hope and pray that we shall not get that argument again.
This is a commercial insurance organisation. It is doing a first-class job, but to mix it up with economic aid to under-developed territories is to mix up two completely and absolutely unrelated subjects. In so far as it is of assistance to the country concerned to receive longterm credits from Britain, that is being done automatically already. There is nothing more that needs doing in that respect. I do not see that there is anything more that export credits could do. If there were, those with whom I am associated would have thought of it already.
Secondly, if we are going to try to divert this already understaffed and overworked Department to a completely new theme, the services given by this Department to industry will deteriorate. The only complaint that one can make of the Export Credits Guarantee Department is that severe delays frequently occur in getting answers to my problems. What frequently happens—and it happens every day in the week in my working life—is that when an exporter is tendering, the tender very often must go in during the afternoon and it is not possible to get a decision in time. I would not like that to be taken as a reflection on the civil servants who are doing the job. There are very few senior civil servants available, and they work very hard and long hours. If the Government were even tinkering with the idea of loading some completely new 'tasks on to the civil servants, severe harm would be done to the British export trade.
These three specific deals with Pakistan, Iran and Yugoslavia were quite exceptional. They were possible under Part III of the Act, but they were quite exceptional. The odd one may occur every two or three years, and in such cases this would be the most convenient way of doing the job, but I hope that the Minister of State will give an assurance that the Board of Trade is not thinking of making this a standard pattern for economic aid. If it does, it will stand export credits on their head. What the Board of Trade is doing may be completely legal, but

it is the opposite to the intention of this Department and it would be treating an already overworked Department in a way which would be very deleterious to the export trade of this country.
Let us have much more economic aid to the Commonwealth, but let us not find the Government pretending that this is the best way to do it. It is not relevant to the issue and it would divert the attention of this Department in a way which would do real harm to our export trade. I hope the Minister of State will give a categorical assurance on that point, that this red herring which has been introduced will not be pursued any further.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I thought the Minister of State was unduly modest in his speech when commending this Bill for a Second Reading. He seemed to suggest that it was a short technical Bill, whereas, as I think has subsequently become clear from the debate that has ensued, the Bill is of very great importance to this country's export trade and to our whole balance of payments position. Nor did I think that the Minister of State lived up to the professions that he made of explaining some of the Clauses as he hoped to make them clear beyond a peradventure.
I want to put one or two questions on that latter point, but first, like everybody else who has participated in this debate, may I, from my relatively small knowledge of the subject, pay a tribute to the excellence of the work which this Department has been doing over the years. I think all exporters and traders, all who have had any occasion in any way to come in contact with the Export Credits Guarantee Department, are impressed both with the very efficient work which it is doing in performing a public service which is unique, and also with the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation which pervades those who work in the Department in giving advice and assistance to traders.
Having said that, I should like to make two minor suggestions for the benefit of the Department, one of which I think has already been mentioned this afternoon. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), in the course of a speech with most of which I disagree, said that this Department fixes rates and has no


difficulty in doing so because there is no competition. But, of course, that is not quite true. There is a great deal of competition, not internally but internationally. The essence of the service which this Department is rendering to British exporters is that it enables them to compete with continental and other exporters.
Therefore, the rates which are fixed for these credit facilities have to be competitive. Indeed, experience shows over and over again in a number of trades that it is only by the service rendered by this Department in providing cover at an appropriate rate that British exporters are able to compete effectively and successfully on very narow margins with their competitors in France, Belgium, Holland, West Germany and elsewhere.
From that point of view, I have heard only two criticisms or suggestions of a critical nature about the Department. They are both directed to enabling exporters to compete more effectively with foreign exporters. As the Minister will know, the length of credit which is covered for Iron Curtain countries is normally fixed at three months. In special circumstances the Department will give cover for transactions entered into on a six months credit basis. It is becoming increasingly common on the part of continental exporters and others to secure in their country extended credit beyond the ordinary 90 days. If those continental dealers can get cover for a lengthy period, it is desirable that British exporters should have the same advantage.
Will the Minister also bear in mind that the limit of 90 days—and here I am speaking particularly of Iron Curtain countries—was presumably fixed many years ago when, I think it is fair to say, without putting any gloss on it, the political risk, the risk of war, turmoil and uncertainty beyond the Iron Curtain, was much greater than it is today. Therefore, if, as I am sure it must be, part of the policy of the Government is to encourage trade with Iron Curtain countries as well as with all other countries, there might be a case for reviewing the circumstances in which the length of cover is given.
The other point was the one to which the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) referred. As he said, it is very often a matter of the greatest urgency

to traders to know within a matter of days, sometimes hours, whether a certain transaction will be insured by the Department or not. Everyone appreciates that inquiries have to be made. My experience, such as it is, is that the Department always works with the greatest speed, and I am sure that it realises the necessity for giving merchants replies on such subjects with absolute dispatch.
I now turn to some of the observations made by the Minister. I am bound to say that I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman made it clear what really is the distinction between Section 1 guarantees and Section 2 guarantees. In so far as I understood him, he said that Section 1 guarantees were commercial guarantees and that Section 2 guarantees were special guarantees. I rather gathered that the only real difference is that Section 1 guarantees, the commercial guarantees, have to obtain the approval of the Advisory Council, whereas what are called Section 2 guarantees need not obtain the approval of the Advisory Council, but may be given by the Board of Trade if that Department thinks it in the national interest so to do.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Substantially that is right, so long as the hon. Gentleman appreciates all the time that within the special guarantees under Section 2 there are two different types and that he is, therefore, referring to the former.

Mr. Fletcher: I am coming to that because, of course, the Bill deals almost entirely with Section 2 guarantees. Therefore, it includes both guarantees which are similar to Section 1 guarantees, except that they do not require the approval of the Advisory Council, and it also includes the quite special class of economic assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom such as Pakistan, Iran and Yugoslavia.
With regard to the point made by the hon. Member for Crosby, I think it is just as well to get it clear. It may be an academic point, but, as I understand it, it would be possible, if the Department so desired, for it to give, on the same transaction, a guarantee of 85 per cent. under Section 1 and the balance under Section 2—it may not be desirable, but I think the Minister of State would agree that it would be legal. If the Department gave a particular commercial guarantee up to the limit recommended


by the Advisory Council the Board of Trade could still under Section 2 say that in the national interest it was desirable to increase it. Although such cases may not arise, I hope that the Minister of State, looking at the matter purely as a legal one and as to what is practicable would not exclude the possibility of it being done if it were desirable. I do not want to pursue the point because it may be academic.
What I really want to ask the Minister about is this. I do not think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman explained very clearly for what use the extra £100 million is required. Is it required to increase guarantees of the first class under Section 2 or is it required to increase guarantees of the second class under Section 2? The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that at the present date, commitments under Section 2 amounted to £72 million and that there were contingent commitments of another £74 million, make a total of £146 million. We have therefore got very near the existing limit of £150 million and are going to authorise another £100 million.
It would be useful to the House to know the breakdown of those figures as between the two categories which fall under Section 2. Could the Minister please tell us how much of the existing commitments, including the contingent commitments, of £146 million are in respect of guarantees for economic assistance for countries outside the United Kingdom? I do not want, at the moment, to enter into a debate as to what is the most desirable way for the Government to use the extra £100 million which is to be granted, but I think that the House is entitled to know the Government's intentions in this respect and why the extra cover is being asked for.
In so far as there may be any alternative choice before the Government, I would hope, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) said, that we should use these additional facilities for the purpose of extending very considerably this country's export trade not only to Soviet Russia but also to China. I find it very difficult to find what there is in the present international situation which justifies the continuance of the existing restrictions on trade with Russia and China. I understand that this is one of the subjects which is being discussed at this very moment in Bermuda

between the Prime Minister and President Eisenhower. Whether or not we can obtain the concurrence of the United States to our own ideas. I very much hope that in the near future the Government will be able to announce a very considerable removal, if not total removal. of the existing restrictions on trade with China, because there is a vast potential for British exporters there. It may well be—I hope it will—that some of the extra money voted under the Bill will be used for that purpose.

Mr. Leather: I am entirely in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman and all in favour of having more trade with China. I agree that the present restrictions are nonsensical. However, I am under the impression that (a) the Chinese have no sterling, and (b) nothing whatever to export to us with which they could pay on any appreciable scale. If the hon. Gentleman has any ideas about that, I should be very grateful to hear them.

Mr. Jay: I am sure that the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) is aware that at present China is selling more goods to the United Kingdom than we are selling to China. Surely, in that situation, there is a case for making some move forward in our exports to China.

Mr. Leather: The sums involved are surely microscopic.

Mr. Fletcher: I do not want to be drawn into details, but I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. At the moment, trade with China is obviously on a very small scale, but China is a very large country with an immense potential, immense quantities of raw materials and other goods, and a country with which we used to have a very large trade years ago. I see no reason why, given a sensible economic policy and the removal of restrictions, a very large trade with China could not be built up again by this country. It may need assistance in the form of guarantees by the Department in the early stages, but it seems to me one of the most promising fields for developing a greater export trade. I am quite sure that if we do not do it, some of our competitors will.
I pass from that to two or three final points. I am sure the Minister of State


will realise that it is now five years since we had a debate on the workings of this Department. As the hon. Member for Somerset, North stated, we had some very interesting debates on the subject some years ago, one in 1952 and another in 1949 one of which, if I remember correctly, went on all night or at least into the early hours of the morning.
I have always thought it is most important that the work of this Department should be widely known. I was reading last night the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate that took place in 1949. The Minister of State, Board of Trade is, no doubt, familiar with it. There were two most important speeches. One was by the President of the Board of Trade and the other was by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Curious though it may seem, in those days both the President of the Board of Trade and the Parliamentary Secretary were very critical of the workings of this Department and were prolific in suggestions how it should be improved.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The present President or the then President?

Mr. Fletcher: The present President. He made a long speech putting forward many suggestions how the work of this Department should be improved, and he was supported by the present Parliamentary Secretary It seems to me a little significant that neither of them, who now occupy Ministerial office giving them responsibility for this Department, has come to advocate the Bill today. I wonder if there is any significance in the fact that this duty has been entrusted to the Minister of State, Board of Trade.

Mr. Jay: Does my hon. Friend also remember that in that debate to which he has referred the hon. Member for Southgate (Sir B. Baxter) made a great complaint because the then President of the Board of Trade and the then Parliamentary Secretary were not present during the debate?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, and I am making a similar complaint, that neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Parliamentary Secretary is here today.
I want to remind the House of criticisms which were then uttered of this Department by the present President of

the Board of Trade and the present Parliamentary Secretary. I ask specifically whether, now that they are in charge of the Department, they are of the same opinion as they were in 1949, and, if so, what steps they have taken to improve the shortcomings to which they then drew attention. Five or six specific matters were mentioned by them. They are very relevant to this debate. The whole House and the whole country will be interested to hear what the situation is now.
The President of the Board of Trade drew attention to this aspect of the matter. He said that the volume of exports was increasing at a much higher rate than the proportion of exports covered by the policies of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. Would the Minister of State say whether that is still the case, and, if so, why it is the case, and also what is the present policy of the Government to deal with that problem?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I traced the movement from 1949 to the present day. The hon. Gentleman must have been listening with less than his usual diligence and attention or he would have noticed the striking use, possibly not unaffected by my right hon. Friend's constructive suggestions.

Mr. Fletcher: I made a careful note of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. He gave us what struck me as being some very coloured and selective figures. He mentioned certain specific years, 1949, 1950, 1956 If he looks up his speech he will find he did not deal in any way with the general trend between the rate of exports and the rate of exports covered by the Department.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Let there be no misunderstanding about this. There was nothing sinister or even selective about the choice of those years. I chose them purely to illustrate the trend by the comparison of the pre-war with the post-war. I took the year 1949 to 1950 for two reasons only: one, that it was ten years from 1939 to 1940; and the other was its relation to this Bill. That is all.

Mr. Fletcher: I am obliged to the Minister of State, and I am very glad to feel that he has been able to deal, to his own satisfaction at any rate, with this


matter. I hope that he will be able to deal equally to his own satisfaction with the other five matters.
The second which the President of the Board of Trade in those days stressed was that the Department and its schemes did not get sufficient publicity. He thought much more publicity ought to be given to the work of the Department and that its activities should be more widely known so that all exporters and others could know about the facilities which were offered. I therefore ask the Minister of State if he will give us an assurance that he is now doing everything to ensure that the work of this Department is as widely known as possible.
The third matter, which, I think, is one of more substance, was this:
How are we going to improve the system of guarantees? We want something rather more flexible.
The right hon. Gentleman complained that there was a certain rigidity about the kind of policy which the Department offered. He said the exporter
has to take out a comprehensive policy covering the solvency of his debtor, the risk of war, the risk that a foreign country may put on exchange control, the risk that there may be some change in the import policy. All the risks must be insured against together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1708.]
He was suggesting it would be convenient to have a much more flexible policy so that an exporter could insure against more risks at a lower rate, but not be compelled to insure against them all. I ask the Minister of State whether the right hon. Gentleman is now proposing to act upon the suggestion he made in 1949 and introduce a greater measure of flexibility in the kind of policy offered by the Department.
Then there was another very pertinent suggestion. I thought so at the time. I listened to the speech with care. The present President of the Board of Trade made this suggestion:
In the past the Department has advised, if not insisted upon, an exporter covering with them the whole of his business in a certain market."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1709.]
He said that was quite unnecessary. To my knowledge there are cases in which exporters would like to be able to cover certain transactions without being compelled, as a condition of doing so, to

insure with the Department the whole of their transactions for a period of a year or so in a certain market. The right hon. Gentleman thought it would be a good thing to relax that unnecessarily severe restriction. Would the Minister of State please tell us whether now that he is in office he agrees with the suggestion made by the President and is prepared to relax the conditions of the policy in that respect?
I think it is worth noting that the right hon. Gentleman, criticising, as he then was, a proposal to raise the figure under Section 2 from £50 million to £100 million—we are now increasing it from £150 million to £250 million—said that that was giving the Government a blank cheque. Would the Minister of State tell us whether what he is now asking for is a blank cheque, and if it is not would he please tell us how he is proposing to fill it up? Because nothing whatever that he said in his speech indicated in the slightest degree to me or my hon. Friends how this £100 million, which the President of the Board of Trade regards as a blank cheque, is to be utilised. I think we are entitled to know.
Finally, the present President of the Board of Trade made another suggestion which I thought more controversial. He thought that the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department should be extended to cover credit facilities for imports as well. In a sense, that would be an even more startling innovation than that of the hon. Member for Crosby, which the hon. Member for Somerset, North demolished with such effect.
Mr. Eccles, as he then was, referring to the Marshall Plan and to O.E.E.C., seemed to think that the work of this Department could quite easily and very profitably be extended to cover a great deal of bilateral and multilateral transactions and thereby would benefit importers as well as exporters. I confess that it was not particularly clear to me how that was to be done. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who at that time was Economic Secretary to the Treasury, understood it either because he certainly, and I have no doubt very wisely, refrained from any comment.
However, it is satisfactory and I am sure it must warm the heart of the President of the Board of Trade that he now


has the opportunity of introducing all these improvements and refinements in the work of his Department— some which struck me as very serious and well-meaning and others which my hon. Friends suggest were light-hearted. As this is the first opportunity that the President of the Board of Trade has had, to tell us, though he has deputed it to the Minister of State, I am sure that we are entitled to know what he thinks.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: I was most diverted, like other hon. Members, by the reference of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) to the President's views in 1949, but it is perhaps a little hard to go back as far as that. We find that members of the Government Front Bench vary in their views over much shorter periods. When we discussed the Cinematograph Films Bill, a matter of a few seconds caused a very large difference of opinion on the part of the President.
I should like, however, to draw attention to what was in many ways a lucid and excellent speech by the Minister of State. He referred to Clause 2 in a somewhat light-hearted fashion. The Clause is a piece of retrospective legislation to cover a serious irregularity in his Department. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) went into this matter in some detail, but I do not think that he actually pointed out that the Department found that it was acting cultra vires counsel's opinion in October, 1954. Then, in spite of having counsel's opinion, it was acting irregularly, and it continued to do so until July, 1955, when it was stopped only by the vigilance of the Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Frank Tribe.
Paragraph 48 of the Sixth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts states:
their action in continuing to apply for issues from the Consolidated Fund in spite of that opinion, and without taking any steps to remedy the position under the defective agreement until the matter was raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General, was quite irregular. They hope that all possible steps will be taken to guard against any recurrence of such irregularities.
It may be that the House can regard with indulgence the Department's overstepping its legal limits, perhaps from enthusiasm to get work done, but it is

symptomatic of the real weakening of Treasury control that is taking place under the present Government. Certainly, Treasury control is hardly likely to be strengthened by the remarks of the Minister of State today. He referred to Clause 2 as being on a technicality. Can we accept that the decisions of the House are merely technicalities? He said that Clause 2 was designed merely to overcome a procedural difficulty. Is an Act of Parliament a procedural difficulty?
In an intervention, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North was speaking, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the real fault was with the Government which in 1949 drafted the Export Gurantees Act, 1949. It is a most extraordinary doctrine that a Department can blame a Government for drafting an Act which the Department has contravened. One has the impression that there is a tendency in the Board of Trade not to admit when one is wrong. One feels that the Minister of State has followed a bad example. We would have accepted Clause 2 much more happily if the right hon. Gentleman had made a frank avowal of the error which is patent to everyone.
Clause 3 brings us up against the painful effects of the Government's credit policy, particularly the raised Bank Rate. It is perhaps poetic justice that the Board of Trade has had its antennae singed by the blast from the Chancellor's credit-squeeze blunderbuss. I hope that the Minister of State will try to induce the Chancellor to modify the severity of the credit squeeze.
Clause 1 is a more welcome part of the Bill. It does not arise from any errors, either of administration or of policy. It would, however, be much more welcome if it became necessary on account of any general rise in exports. Unfortunately, the Clause is in the Bill merely for the purpose of increasing guarantees for risks which are not commercial—in other words, a very minor part in actual money sums of the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
The Minister of State gave us some figures, which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East suggested were rather selective. It seems to me that there is a good deal of substance in that suggestion. In page 12 of a very excellent and lucid booklet called "Payment


Secured", issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, there is a graph of the actual business taken from year to year. This business increased in a meteoric way from 1945 to 1951 and then there was a sharp decline. Business decreased considerably and, presumably from the figures the Minister of State has given us, it has only just recently increased again, though I doubt whether it has reached the 1951 level. We should like the Minister of State to tell us, perhaps more clearly, whether business has really substantially increased during that period, because the figures issued by his own Department tend to controvert that.
It would be very happy indeed for us if the export position were satisfactory. Admittedly, there was a small increase in exports last year, but there is no escape from the fact that we are having a declining share of the world export market. That simply means that our exports are increasing to a lesser extent than those of everybody else, that we are merely taking part in a world process but to a much more limited extent than should be the case, and that we are in fact dropping behind.
In 1949 the present President of the Board of Trade made some suggestions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East referred today. There seems to be a good deal of substance in at least two of those suggestions. The first concerns publicity. This Department will obviously be an enormous help to all exporters and potential exporters, but is it widely known to all the business interests concerned? Personally, I have never seen an advertisement in the financial Press referring to the Department. One does not know whether all the small firms are circularised. Are steps being taken to ensure widespread publicity to any firm likely to increase our exports? I should be glad if the Minister of State could reassure us on that point.
There are some grounds for dissatisfaction about the omnibus nature of the risks covered. If one looks at the ordinary policies issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department, one finds a very wide range of risks which are all covered simultaneously for the same premium. I feel that many of these risks are either very small or certainly such as would not be likely to occur.
For instance, let us consider a firm exporting motor car engines to the Australian Government. Under the comprehensive scheme it would be insured against additional handling charges occurring through interruption or diversion of voyage. It could be insured against any other cause of loss occurring outside the United Kingdom and not in the control of the exporter. These are useful forms of insurance, but would the exporter to the Australian Government want insurance against the insolvency of the buyer or against war between the buyer's country and the United Kingdom or against the buyer's refusal to pay within twelve months? It seems to me that these are remote contingencies for insurance. There seems to be a substantial case for cutting the cloth more consistently with the requirement of the customer.
I think a very helpful extension of the power of the Act would be if some provision were made to guarantee the export of capital. There is no doubt that a very substantial advantage is to be gained by investing capital in other countries. The United States has found that of enormous value. It has a scheme in which the Economic Co-operation Administrator can guarantee money invested in foreign countries for capital projects. Quite apart from the vexed question of help to our newer Dominions, which we have debated, it seems that there might be some advantage in extending the export guarantee scheme in limited cases, at the Department's discretion, to capital invested in foreign countries.
We have debated this somewhat limited Bill at considerable length and it would be ungracious if we on this side of the House did not make it clear that we think very highly of the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and that we think it is doing a very fine job and in many respects is pioneering new fields of financial activity. We certainly accept Clause 1 with pleasure and satisfaction.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Perhaps I may have the leave of the House to reply briefly—briefly in view of the volume of business still before the House—to the points raised in the debate. On the whole it has been an extremely pleasant debate, and I should like to start by thanking the hon. Members for their agreeable references


to myself and for the tributes which they have rightly paid to the work of the Department. I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), who has explained to me that he has been compelled to leave, for his kind and well-merited reference to the Comptroller General of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.
The only harsh words which have been spoken in the debate fell from the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), perhaps echoed in milder terms by his hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), in relation to the past history of Clause 2. I do not intend to take up the time of the House with a protracted post mortem. When I say that it is a technical matter, that does not mean that it is of no importance. I am distinguishing it from the main points of the Bill in Clause 1, which has important repercussions upon our export trade.
In so far as the Export Credits Guarantee Department was not able to implement the intention of the 1949 Act by the procedure which is prescribed, it bears a measure of blame from which it would not wish to retreat. But there is also a measure of blame upon the farmers of the 1949 Act from which the right hon. Gentleman cannot successfully dissociate himself by however so emphatic a shake of his head.
All these things are relative. In my view to talk of "irregularities" is to use rather extravagant language. I am quite prepared to make an admission of error on behalf of the Board of Trade and the Export Credits Guarantee Department in this sense, but I do not think I could properly go beyond a phrase which may awaken some nostalgic thoughts in the mind of the right hon. Member, that this was just one of those occasions on which it turned out that the gentlemen in Whitehall, in the event, did not know best.

Mr. Jay: All I asked the Minister to say was that the Government intended to take steps to prevent this sort of thing from happening again. The Public Accounts Committee, and not I, said that it hoped
that all possible steps will be taken to guard against any recurrence of such irregularities.
It is reasonable to ask the Government, I think, to say that they mean to comply with that.

Mr. Walker-Smith: That is why we have written Clause 2 into the Bill at the earliest possible opportunity. I have explained the genesis of Clause 2 and I have explained that when the procedure did not fit with the requirement of the Act counsel devised what I called a revised procedure which complied with the technicalities of the Act. On the other hand, this was an artificial concept, and we therefore now have Clause 2 which will provide a viable method of implementing what at all times was the intention of Parliament under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1949 Act.

Mr. Ronald Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking a lot more than that. Clause 2 definitely provides, although not in express terms, that whatever consequences could have flowed as a result of these illegalities, these will now be prevented by Clause 2, if we accept it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he is saying that, perhaps in an excess of zeal, the Department did certain things which the House ought now to regard as something which it should overlook and for which full indemnity should be provided, there is no one more likely to accept such a proposition than the House. But he also says that this is a trifling matter, an artificial question and a purely technical question of no significance at all. He is asking for an indemnity in Clause 2 which up to the present I most heartily would have given him.
I was under the impression until his last few words that there had been irregularities and that the word "irregularities" was the proper word to apply, but I do not think that, because there have been irregularities, there should, therefore, be an investigation into every case and that a rigorous prosecution should follow. It seemed to me there was another way of doing it and that this was, perhaps, the right, gentle and sensible way of doing it. I hope that the Minister will not, at this stage of the debate, force us into the position of saying that although up to the present we could have accepted Clause 2, we must now have doubts about it.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman uses the language of indemnity and proceedings in respect of individuals. What this Clause is primarily for is to


make it clear that the agreements entered into by this procedure, which was not in total accord with the requirements of Section 3 of the 1949 Act, are not rendered ultra vires. They are restrospectively validated, if necessary, by the Clause in this Bill for which we are seeking to obtain a Second Reading today.
As regards the extent of error, I used the word "technical" in the sense in which I have already sought to define it. I used that word as meaning that the action taken did not, so far as I can see, go beyond the intentions of Parliament, albeit it did not in all respects comply with the procedural requirements of Parliament. It is not to say that it is a small thing, because the sovereignty of Parliament is absolute and what it says must be done, but I was seeking to distinguish it from any effort to go outside the intention of Parliament. Indeed, inso-for as the Department erred in these matters, it erred—I will adopt the hon. Gentleman's own phrase—"in an excess of zeal" to implement what has been the evident intention of Parliament throughout.

Mr. Jay: We never suggested—I do not think anyone did—that the Department attempted to go outside the intentions of Parliament. Nor, indeed, were we blaming anybody. We are merely asking the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that, although he is proposing to change the law in this way, it is the intention of the Government to ensure that, even when the law is changed, other irregularities are not committed. I do not see why he should not say that.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Yes, the Department—indeed, the Board of Trade—will seek to be as competent as possible in this and all other matters. I will unreservedly give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman, with which I hope he will be content.
Now, if I may come to the specific points raised during the course of the debate, the right hon. Gentleman asked first about the economic assistance agreements. There are, in fact, only three current ones, to which I referred. There was a concluded agreement with Iraq, but that has been paid off, and therefore that is not a current agreement. His next question related to the total of exports covered by Section 2, special guarantees.

The total figure, from the inception of the scheme to date, is £220 million. The position at 31st March, 1956, which is the last balance, for the Section 2 scheme was, for encouraging trade £867,000 odd, and for economic assistance nearly £226,000, a total of £1,093,587.
The next question put by the right hon. Gentleman was rather a wider one, whether the increase for which we ask the consent of Parliament in the Section 2 permitted maximum liability reflects evidence of the Government's belief in increased trade with the Iron Curtain countries. That is not a necessary inference to be drawn from this, because, of course, there are other purposes for the Section 2 guarantees. I mentioned more particularly in this context the Middle East, which is particularly in our minds in this increase of permitted liability. However, I should like the right hon. Gentleman and the House to be clear about this point. He rather gave me, at any rate, the impression that he thought all Iron Curtain business could be dealt with only under the special guarantees under Section 2. That is not the case. It is possible for exports to Russia to be dealt with, and there are cases in which they are so dealt with, under the ordinary commercial guarantees under Section 1.
As to the general position of the embargoes, I do not think this will be the occasion for me to seek to add to what has already been said in this House by the Government on this matter. As the House knows, the Government are prepared to encourage trade with East Europe and China in non-strategic goods. As regards strategic goods, the embargo is operated in consultation with our partners in the Paris Consultative Group, and any change in the embargo must be agreed with our partners in that Group. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs has already said today that it is likely that the embargo will be amongst the subjects discussed at Bermuda.
The next point of the right hon. Gentleman related to Clause 3 in respect of the interest. He asked, would it not be perhaps more convenient for the Treasury to lower the interest? The right hon. Gentleman was at the Treasury rather longer than I, and knows more of these matters, but I understand that it would be contrary to the Treasury view of these


things to lower the rate charged to the Department and to give it a special rate lower than would generally be accorded.
His last question was about the net credit or notional reserve of £4,800,000 on the commercial guarantees at the end of the financial year 1955–56. That is a figure which represents the outcome of twenty-six years' credit insurance trading covering about £5,000 million of export trade. I call it a notional reserve because, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the Department does not hold it itself, because of the ordinary budgetary procedure. On his specific question about the losses on Brazil, the fact that there is this notional reserve of £4·8 million means that those Brazilian losses have been successfully wiped out.
I now turn to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). His first point has already been dealt with by other hon. Members in the debate, and I think he will now appreciate that one cannot mix Section 1 and Section 2 guarantees. In any event, even if that were so, one could not properly —I say this as a matter not of law but of insurance principle—give 100 per cent. cover in respect of any transaction because of the principle—I think the House will agree that it is a proper principle—that the exporter must retain an interest in the transaction for which he seeks cover.
My hon. Friend also asked about colonial companies. I am afraid that would be going outside the purpose and ambit of this type of scheme, which is designed to assist our own exports. It has been extended to overseas subsidiaries, but I could not properly hold out to my hon. Friend any hope that it could be extended beyond that.
My hon. Friend also asked to what extent this was used as a method of export steering. The Department's standard facilities are available for exports to dollar markets as to other destinations. Section 2 also provides for an exceptional range of facilities. I mentioned the interest in the dollar market in respect of applications under Section 2, and to that extent, though to that extent only, I think it might be said that they are in a way a form of export steering.
The last point made by my hon. Friend was the more controversial one about the use of the Export Credit Guarantees

Department in respect of supplementing colonial development and welfare work. My hon. Friend probably hardly appreciates just how controversial his point is, because I think he was not in the Chamber when my hon. Friend the Members for Somerset, North denounced the proposition in characteristically vigorous terms. I do not want to repeat what he said about that, and will merely say that the reference of my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Colonies which was mentioned was, of course, to the economic assistance agreement aspects under Section 2. It would, of course, still be possible for Ghana, for example, or any other former Colony to have an economic assistance agreement under Section 2 in the same way as Pakistan already has. In addition to that, there is the ordinary availability of cover for the Export Credits Guarantee Department under the commercial guarantees and the first type of special guarantees. Those have a useful function, but it would not be right, of course. to put forward the Department as a substitute for, or an activity linked with, the colonial development and welfare activities.
The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) asked for a comparison of credit facilities with other countries, and in particular Germany. The credit insurance schemes vary from country to country, all being run, as ours is, on a self-supporting basis. The Export Credits Guarantee Department has information about these matters, not least because of its membership of the Berne Union, which is an international association of export credit insurance. But the information which is got by one country about another in this way is necessarily only partial, and it is also confidential. It would not, I think, be proper or possible to disseminate such information obtained on a confidential basis. Indeed, it would tend to weaken the basis of confidence which underlines the association in the Berne Union.
The hon. Member for Islington, East suggested that I had not made clear, to him at any rate, the difference between the special and the commercial guarantees. I am sorry if I failed to make it clear to him. As Dr. Johnson said: "I can only give him an explanation; I cannot give him an understanding." Perhaps


when he reads the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow he will find my explanation clearer than he at present thinks. He asked whether the increase was necessary for the first type or the second type of Section 2 guarantee. It is, in fact, necessary to cover future guarantees of both types.
The other point put by the hon. Gentleman referred to the splitting of the existing commitments and contingent liabilities. The contingent commitment figure which I gave is made up by £52 million for encouraging trade and £20 million for economic assistance.
The hon. Gentleman referred to a speech made in 1949 by my right hon. Friend the present President of the Board of Trade. I thought that the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend, as read out by the hon. Gentleman, were characteristically constructive and symptomatic of his far-ranging mind and his interest in these matters. The questions of publicity and flexibility will certainly be very present to our minds, and any improvements which we can make in accordance with those suggestions or the suggestions of the hon. Member, we shall certainly seek to achieve.

Mr. E. Fletcher: As the President of the Board of Trade has now arrived to support the right hon. and learned Gentleman, may we take it that what he has now said means that the President will be desirous of carrying out the suggestions which he made in 1949?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I was pointing out to the hon. Gentleman that in regard to the first point it has already happened in a very striking way. With regard to the point about increased publicity, that is an ever-present need, and we shall seek to make further progress under the inspiration of my right hon. Friend who has now assumed responsibility for the matters on which he was then advising. I hope the House will now give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Barber.]

Committee Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). —[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Export Guarantees Acts. 1949 to 1952, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act—

(i) raising to two hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred and fifty million pounds imposed by subsection (2) of section two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, as amended, in respect of guarantees under that section,
(ii) extending the power of the Board of Trade under the said section two, so far as that power is exercisable for the purpose of rendering economic assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom, by authorising the making of arrangements for facilitating payments under contracts with persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom or companies directly or indirectly controlled by such persons;
in the sums which, under section three or section four of the said Act of 1949 are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer; and
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums representing the excess of

(i) interest payable into the Exchequer under section three of the said Act of 1949 on sums paid into the Acquisition of Guaranteed Securities Fund for the purpose of acquiring securities created under arrangements made before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-six; over
(ii) interest collected on such securities.—[Mr. Powell.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to give effect, with a few minor alterations, to the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Naval Discipline Act. Before dealing with the Bill itself, I should like to express our thanks to the Select Committee—under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens)—for the thorough and efficient manner it set about its task, and our admiration of the results which it achieved. We owe a special debt of gratitude to my right hon. and learned Friend for he has chaired not only this Select Committee, but also the Select Committee on the Army and Air Force Acts which charted so much of the ground which this Select Committee had to cover later.
Many features of the new Army and Air Force Acts have been incorporated in the Bill. Indeed, it is fair to say that we have followed them except where there is some clear naval reason for diverging. The result is a Bill which goes far to standardise the discipline of all three Services and to modernise the Act of 1866, without destroying its characteristically naval flavour.
One of the most important changes in the Bill is to give the Navy the same power as the other two Services to try civil offences committed on shore in this country. Again we have adopted almost exactly the same provisions relating to the apprehension of deserters and absentees as now apply to men of the other Services, so simplifying the task of the civil authorities and the police and also, incidentally, getting rid of the antiquated Naval Deserters Act, 1847. Now that flying is an integral part of naval life, we have thought it right to introduce specific offences relating to aircraft, and these are almost identical with those which have proved satisfactory in the R.A.F. In regard to the death penalty, too, we have come into line with the other two Services, removing all

mandatory provisions and retaining it in the main only for offences committed
with intent to assist the enemy".
Now for the points where we differ from the Army and Air Force Acts. The most important difference between the Bill and the Army and Air Force Acts lies in the wider powers of punishment which a commanding officer may mete out summarily without convening a court-martial. Here we are dealing with matters which must at all hazards be brought to the test of reality. A court-martial, to deserve the name, presupposes the attendance of experienced officers who can be relieved of their other duties in order to form the court, a judge advocate, witnesses, shorthand writers and so forth. A court-martial, in fact, practically must be held in port. But Her Majesty's ships cannot be required to proceed to base and stay there for the trial of any and every act of indiscipline that sailors commit while on service.
So the captain of one of Her Majesty's ships must in effect be the magistrate of his own community. It follows from this that a court-martial is held less often in the Navy than in the other two Services and it has tended to have a higher status. For example, the president must be at least a captain R.N. and the minimum ranks laid down for the other members are higher than in the Army and the R.A.F.
Another difference is that, as the consequences of insubordination or negligence in a ship at sea can be as grave in time of peace as in time of war, we do not differentiate between the punishment of offences committed "on active service" and those committed at other times.
Now for the points at which the Bill differs from the recommendations of the Select Committee. Only two are of substance. The Fifth Schedule to the Select Committee's draft Bill contained an amendment to Section 46 of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, designed to absorb Section 31 of the present Naval Discipline Act, which deals with the obligation of the masters of merchant ships under convoy to obey the commanding officer of the escort and indemnifies the commanding officer against any loss of life or property that may be caused by his compelling obedience of the master.
We have subsequently found that this device is not satisfactory, partly because Section 46 of the Naval Prize Act applies only to British ships, and so would not indemnify against damage to other vessels; partly because that Section does not apply to an unescorted convoy and would not, therefore, apply to a convoy with a Royal Naval commodore in charge, but not escorted by warships; and partly because it contains penal provisions which cannot properly be applied to ships registered outside the United Kingdom while they are on the high seas. For those reasons, we have had to alter the Select Committee's recommendations and include a new Clause 131 dealing with the whole matter.
The other change in the Select Committee's draft is over the composition of courts-martial, and will make all officers of appropriate rank eligible to sit on courts-martial and disciplinary courts—this is what the present Bill sets out—provided that they have held a commission for three years. The Select Committee recommended that eligibility should be confined to the general list and corresponding officers holding permanent commissions in the reserves. The Government did not feel able to agree with that, because it involved excluding officers of the supplementary and special duties lists who have been eligible to sit in the past and who are capable of performing the duty, and also because it would mean excluding all temporary officers of the reserves, many of whom would be well qualified to sit on courts-martial, especially in time of war.
The Select Committee further recommended that the president and no fewer than half the other members of a court-martial should be officers holding a bridge watch-keeping certificate. This provision was presumably designed to perpetuate the predominance of the old-style executive officers. Although the Government consider that it will be necessary to limit the number of non-seamen on courts-martial, at any rate for the time being, in view of the wider experience of seamen in disciplinary matters, nevertheless, they feel that it is undesirable to fix any definite proportion by Statute.
The Select Committee's draft Bill also required the convening authority to report his reasons to the Admiralty if he

nominated officers of certain ranks and appointments to be members of courts-martial. In fact, the minimum ranks laid down in subsections (1), (5), (6), (7), and (8) of Clause 54 seem quite sufficient; and the accused, of course, always has the right to challenge a member of the court, if he considers that he may, by reason of his appointment, already know too much about the case.
A further point is that none of the restrictions proposed by the Select Committee in this Clause applies to courts-martial under the Army and Air Force Acts. If we altered it we should be differing from the other two Services in this respect. They have the same rule as that which we are now proposing, that all officers of appropriate rank who have held a commission for three years are eligible, and it is left to the convening authority to nominate the most suitable We are convinced that this is the most liberal and flexible arrangement possible.
Other minor and drafting improvements—as we think—have been made but these are within the spirit of the Select Committee's recommendations.
Some hon. Members, particularly hon. and gallant Members, will regret the disappearance of some of the ancient phraseology of the old Act. We are particularly sad to repeal Section 44, which contains these time-honoured words:
… punished according to the laws and customs in such cases used at sea.
These words refer back to the Rules of Oleron, the most important of all medieval embodiments of maritime law and custom. They were based on the sea-laws of the Romans who, in their turn, had taken them from Rhodian law, itself derived, in remote antiquity, from the Phoenicians of Tyre and Sidon.
These rules, adopted by many seafaring countries, laid down rough, ready and, in the modern context, somewhat brutal punishments to fit various crimes. Death by drowning or burial alive, tarring and feathering, hands to be cut off, keelhauling, and flogging at the capstan, were the principal punishments. These rules governed the conduct of British sailors at sea until 1653, when the Articles of War defined specific punishments for certain crimes; for the rest, the Rules of Oleron held sway, enshrined in the instruction that
other crimes should be dealt with according to the laws and customs of the sea".


The Acts of 1661, 1749, 1847 and 1866, to which this Bill is the direct successor, followed the same lines. They specified more punishments to fit more crimes, but always that sentence remained to cover the residue.
So the story of the rules of conduct of life at sea is a story of gradual evolution. Professor Lewis, who recently wrote an introduction to the Admiralty Manual on Court Martial procedure, described the Rules of Oleron as a whole big hogshead of customs which the State has dipped into from time to time to abstract certain cupsful, by specifying certain crimes And punishments.
Government succeeded Government, Act supplanted Act, each removing into their new receptacle more and more of the barrel's content, yet never draining it dry—for here, in Section 44 of the Naval Discipline Act, which is in force today, is that phrase referring back through the Rules of Oleron to Roman, Rhodian and Phoenician law:
Any person subject to this Act committing any offence shall, save where this Act expressly otherwise provides, be proceeded against and punished according to the laws and customs in such cases used at sea".
The Select Committee recommended, and the Government agreed, that as the Bill lays down for the first time by Statute the punishments for all offences which sailors may commit, the time had now come to remove that sentence. So Section 44 of the 1866 Act is not repeated in the Bill, and the direct link between the Naval Discipline Act and the Rules of Oleron is to be broken.
But there still remains an indirect link. The Preamble to the Bill refers to Her Majesty's Navy
whereon, under the good providence of God, the wealth, safety and strength of the Kingdom so much depend.
These are almost the exact words, adapted slightly in order not to give too much offence to the Army and Air Force, used in the Articles of War of 1661, which leant so firmly on the Rules of Oleron.
I feel much honoured that the first Bill I should present to Parliament should come of so famous a line of Acts which have had, through their rules of conduct for our sailors, so great an impact

on our history. In the belief that this one will fill the needs of a modern Service, I commend it to the House.

Mr. John Dugdale: By Clause 1, which relates to public worship, are we to understand that compulsory public worship is reintroduced into the Navy?

Mr. Soames: It means that it is compulsory to hold public worship, but not compulsory to attend it.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I am indeed happy to say that on this occasion I find myself in complete agreement with most of what the Parliamentary Secretary has had to say in moving the Second Reading of the Bill. First, I should like to join with him in expressing the gratitude of hon. Members on this side of the House for the good work done by the Select Committee and the Departmental Committee. It must be a source of great satisfaction to the Committees to see, at long last, the results of their labours.
In view of the Select Committee's work and its published Report, and because the Bill follows, in considerable degree, the Army and Air Force Acts, it was not to be expected—and we did not expect—that the Minister should go into a lengthy description of the Bill. I picked out some points for mention but, unfortunately, the Minister has had the same idea and he has already mentioned most of them. I agree with him that one of the important changes is that which is associated with the death penalty. Like the other two Acts, the Bill eliminates the death penalty in the case of many offences, and it is now limited to the graver and more aggravated forms of mutiny associated with the enemy.
One could say that these are welcome changes in view of the number of offences in which the death penalty could have been imposed. When I read the long list of those offences laid down in the old Acts I was rather horrified. It says a great deal for the discipline and the high code of honour of the Service that, as the Report points out, there has been only one execution under naval law in the last one hundred years.
The Parliamentary Secretary ended his speech by discussing the Preamble, which


I read with some interest. The other two Acts have no Preamble of this kind, and as far as my researches go I have not been able to find another Act with such a Preamble. The Committee was divided upon this point, some Members feeling that it was quite unnecessary and others thinking that it had a use and ought to be retained because of the tradition of the Service. The Parliamentary Secretary read out the Preamble as it now is, but he did not draw sufficient attention to the change that has taken place. The words in the previous Preamble were:
the wealth, safety and strength of the Kingdom chiefly depend ….
Instead, it now says, "so much depend." As the hon. Gentleman said, it is some indication that the other Services are rather important. It may be that, at long last, the Admiralty accepts that and we can look forward to greater co-operation in the future between the three Services.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention one interesting matter about which the Committee suggested that the House might say something. I refer to the question of the W.R.N.S. The two other women's Services are subject to the provisions of the Army Act and the Air Force Act, but the W.R.N.S. is not subject to the provisions of the Naval Discipline Act. It is encouraging to note what the Committee had to say about that, and I think that we should agree with the Committee. The W.R.N.S. is a purely voluntary Service and I think that has some bearing on the spirit and demeanour of its members. I understand now, and appreciate more clearly why it is that the W.R.N.S. always "steals the show" when there is a parade of the Services.
I consider the Committee was rather harsh regarding the penalty for drunken-ness which is dealt with in Clause 28. It is true that, for the first time, the Bill gives a definition of drunkenness and I find it very interesting. Subsection (2) states:
Every person subject to this Act who is drunk whether on duty or not …
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to examine that again, because I visualise

that a sailor from H.M.S. "Jupiter" might have a Saturday night off and come to Helensburgh with some colleagues and spend an evening in a public house. He may have imbibed a little more than he can properly carry, but he may walk away from the public house quite properly. He may not be doing anything which, under civil law, would require that he be taken into custody.
It may be that the sailor has a rolling gait, and that may exaggerate his appearance of insobriety. This poor, innocent sailor, if found in that condition, is liable to be imprisoned for two years. That seems to me to be rather harsh. On examining the Army Act and the Air Force Act, I find that there is a proviso relating to warrant officers, non-commissioned officers or soldiers and that the sentence may be limited, so that it does not exceed detention for six months. Perhaps between now and the Committee stage the Minister will have a look at this matter and put it right.
The Parliamentary Secretary knows that there are some points on which the members of the Committee disagreed, and naturally my hon. Friends and I wish to put down Amendments, which we hope will be discussed during the Committee stage. He mentioned one notable departure from the Report of the Committee relating to the constitution of courts-martial. I accept that the Government are taking the right course, and if any of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends wish to change it during the Committee stage, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we on this side of the House will support the Government in maintaining the present provisions in the Bill.
I wish to thank the members of the Select Committee for the work they did and the Government for at last bringing forward this Measure. I join with the Parliamentary Secretary in commending the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Barber.]

Committee Tomorrow.

RATING AND VALUATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

New Clause "A".—(REPEAL OF INOPERA- TIVE ENACTMENTS.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 3, line 45, at end insert:
A. Whereas in consequence of the passing of subsection (6) of section five of the Rating and Valuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1955, the enactments mentioned in the Schedule to this Act have ceased to have effect to the extent specified in the third column of that Schedule; the said enactments are hereby repealed to the extent so specified." —[Mr. Barber.]

New Schedule "A."-(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 4, line 27, at end add:


Session and Chapter
Short Title
Extent of Repeal


32 &amp; 33 Vict.c.67.
The Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869.
In section four the definition of "gross value".


1 &amp; 2 Eliz. 2c. 42.
The Valuation for Rating Act, 1953.
In section two in subsection (1) the words from "or in section four" to "the Act of 1869')".




In section four, in subsection (2) the words "or the Act of 1869, as the case may be".




In section five, in subsection (2) the words "or the Act of 1869, as the case may be."




In section six, in subsection (3) the words "or in section four of the Act of 1869".


—[Mr. Barber.]

Mr. Speaker: The Sitting is suspended for five minutes.

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.0 p.m.

Major W. Hicks Beach: This Bill is a complete mystery to me, as an hon. Member who represents a Gloucestershire Division, and I oppose the Second Reading because I feel most strongly that we should receive some information from the Gloucester Corporation of what it is seeking to do by this Bill.
I think it is normal, certainly in my experience of this House, that when a Private Bill of this sort is introduced by some local authority, that authority sends some brief to the local Members of Parliament. If I had received one, I should have given it very careful consideration. I venture to say also that as this is a Bill which consists of some 137 Clauses and two Schedules, which has been introduced to the House, I hope that there will be some hon. Member of this House who can give us some explanation of it. I do not know if that is so. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Philips Price) can give us some explanation, but I venture to say that if matters of this sort are to handled in this way, the House should reject the Bill quite emphatically.
I regard it as gross discourtesy to this House that none of us has received any information about the Bill at all, and I hope I am in order in saying that I shall certainly oppose the Bill and that I wish to register a protest, on behalf of hon. Members representing Gloucestershire, about being given no information about it. I oppose the Bill, and do not think it should receive a Second Reading.

7.3 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I rise to say a word or two in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach), although it would have been better if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester City (Mr. Turner-Samuels) spoke instead of me; but he is at present abroad for health reasons. I rise to say


a few words in so far as I understand the reason why the Gloucester Corporation have inserted Clause 84 in the Bill.

Major Hicks Beach: Not only Clause 84; I want to know about the whole Bill.

Mr. Speaker: We have not yet come to the Instruction, of which notice has been given. I have proposed the Question to the House, That the Bill be read a Second time, and the hon. and gallant Member

for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) has spoken against the Second Reading of the whole Bill. When the Bill has been read a Second time, I shall call upon those who are sponsoring the Instruction to move their Motion.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 107, Noes 136.

Division No. 80.]
AYES
[7.5 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Horbison, Miss M.
Parkin, B. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holmes, Horace
Pearson, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Holt, A. F.
Popplewell, E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Balfour, A.
Hoy, J. H.
Rankin, John


Beswick, Frank
Hubbard, T. F.
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, F.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hunter, A. E.
Royle, C.


Boyd, T. C.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Brockway, A. F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lawson, G. M.
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McGovern, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Tomney, F.


Dodds, N. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Usborne, H. C.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John(W. Brmwch)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mason, Roy
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mawby, R. L.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
Mellish, R. J.
Wigg, George


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gooch, E. G.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, Rev. Liywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mulley, F. W.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Grimond, J.
Oswald, T.
Woof, R. E.


Hall, Rt.Hon. Glenvil (Coine Valley)
Owen, W. J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W.
Paget, R. T.
Zilliacus, K.


Hannan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.



Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hastings, S.
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Philips Price and


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.
Mr. David Jones.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Cooke, Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus


Aitken, W. T.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Green, A.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Gurden, Harold


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Crouch, R. F.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Arbuthnot, John
Cunningham, Knox
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Armstrong, C. W.
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Masciesfd)


Ashton, H.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Atkins, H. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Baidwin, A. E.
Drayson, G. B.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Barber, Anthony
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Bariow, Sir John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth. West)
Hornby, R. P.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Errington, Sir Eric
Howard, Hon. Grevllie (St. Ives)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Bishop, F. P.
Foster, John
Hurd, A. R.


Braine, B. R.
Freeth, Denzil
Iremonger, T. L.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Brooman-White, R. C.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bryan, P.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Godber, J. B.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Channon, Sir Henry
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Keegan, D.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gower, H. R.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.




Kershaw, J. A.
Oakshott, H. D.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Kimball, M.
O'Neill. Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stoddart-Seott, Col. M.


Kirk, P. M.
Page, R. G.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Leburn, W. G.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Studhoime, Sir Henry


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Partridge, E.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Legh, Hon. Pater (Petersfield)
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Linstead, sir H. N.
Pott, H. P.
Temple, J. M.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Powell, J Enoch
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Redmayne, M.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Water-house, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Robertson, Sir David
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Russell, R. S.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Maltland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marshall, Douglas
Sharples, R. C.
Woollam, John Victor


Maydon, Lt.-Commdr, S. L. C.
Shepherd, William



Moore, Sir Thomas
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Soames, Christopher
Major Hicks Brach and


Nairn, D. L. S.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Mr. Nabarro.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

PEOPLE'S DISPENSARY FOR SICK ANIMALS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me at an early stage. I represent the constituency in which is situated the Technical Headquarters of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, the promoters of the Bill. It is fitting that I should, therefore, commend to the House the merits of the Bill which the promoters have, unfortunately, been obliged to present.
Let me say frankly to my hon. Friends and to hon. Gentlemen opposite that I recognise that there is almost universal opposition in this House to the Bill. I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in his place, because he is in this up to the neck. I say with equal frankness that had it not been that I represent the constituency which has a particular interest in the Bill I should have been in the position in which the great majority of hon. Members are. I should have got the circulars about the Bill and I should have taken counsel with my hon. Friends. I should have said, "What's all this about?" and I should have heard from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) that I should be very ill-advised to associate myself with the Bill. Taking it by and large, and with a cursory scrutiny of the evidence, I would have let it go at that, and I would not have touched it.
However, when an hon. Member is invited to take an interest in a matter which has a constituency interest for him he brings to bear a degree of scrupulous scrutiny rather more than he might do if he had no particular interest. My position was that I was invited to consider the merits of the Bill from that point of view, and I did so. Having done so I really must say to the House that I have come to the conclusion, despite the superficial and specious attractiveness of the case against the Bill, that I

feel obliged to ask the House to consider very seriously indeed whether hon. Members are not making a great mistake in voting against the Bill, whether the state of affairs which I propose to reveal to the House does not constitute a serious injustice and whether the House would not be very well-advised to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I hope that the House will give me indulgence in deploying what I have come to recognise, over the past week in which I have been studying it, is a very strong case indeed. I may assist the House best if I start by retailing the course of events that has led up to the impasse out of which this Bill tries to find a way.
It all starts with the period after the war preceding the introduction into this House of the Veterinary Surgeons Bill, 1947.

Mr. A. J. Champion: 1948.

Mr. Iremonger: The Bill was introduced in 1947. We have to go back to that period. The interested parties, the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, were then considering the problems raised by the Bill. The objects of the Bill were to put the veterinary surgery profession on a proper footing, largely because it was considered to be in the interests of agriculture to have the benefit of a highly-qualified profession of the highest standard, and to put an end to unqualified veterinary practice.
I want to make it clear, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I reiterate it from time to time, that the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals absolutely supports the principles of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1948, and that its whole policy is based upon acceptance of those principles. I hope that the "Vets' Lobby", if I may so call it, will recognise that, and that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus and others who jealously guard the rights and qualifications of the veterinary profession, will take it as established that the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals is not a blackleg organisation which tries to get round the provisions of the Act. Its whole policy is based upon the Act. It went into negotiation on the 1947 Bill with that policy firmly in mind.
At the same time it found itself in a certain difficulty. I want to explain what that difficulty was. The People's Dispensary for Sick Animals was faced with the duty of carrying on the work which it had been doing for thirty years of caring for the sick animals of the poor. It was established as a charity. At this stage perhaps I may digress for a moment to ask the House to join me in commending the work which has been carried out by the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals and to recognise and to register approval of certain features of that society.
One would want to commend its work in the care, not only for small animals but for that class of animals for which it uniquely caters, the draught animals of the poor—the costermonger's donkey, the pony which draws the cart for the scrap metal merchant, who is the backbone of the steel industry, and the horses of the gipsies. After all, why should not they be properly cared for? These working animals have a special need of care and attention and cannot be cared for and protected so adequately in any other way.
The Society treats very nearly 1 million cases every year. It caters for this very large number of animals and maintains throughout the country, in every area of the United Kingdom, eighty-one dispensaries, which are open twenty-four hours a day for the service of people who call upon it. Apart from that, as everyone knows, these dispensaries are places to which people have recourse—old people who keep pets to comfort them in their old age and young children, with parents who are not well off, who take their pets there to have them looked after and kept in good health. It is right and proper that we should pay respect and regard to that function. I feel that children should be trained at a very early age to look after something or somebody else. The best means of providing that training is by teaching a child to look after an animal. That tends to produce in the people of this nation the character which I think is particularly representative of the British nature.
The Society does all this as a statutory charity and it does it only for people who do not and cannot afford the services of a qualified veterinary practitioner. I want especially to emphasise that. It is sometimes suggested that people go to the

P.D.S.A. and get free treatment for their animals when they might well go to a vet and pay a proper fee, but I have satisfied myself by personal inspection of the headquarters in my constituency—to which I paid a visit when there was no special preparation made for me at all and the dispensary was functioning in its normal way—that very special and proper precautions are taken to see that people do not take advantage of the charitable nature of this organisation. I found in the surgery the register which people who come for treatment for their animals are asked to sign. It has the heading:
Veterinary Surgeons' Act, 1948
and then the words:
I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I am unable to afford private professional service and that my animal is not or has not recently been in the care of another practitioner.
I hope, therefore, hon. Members will not think that there is a desire on the part of the P.D.S.A. to poach on the province of the veterinary profession. On the contrary, in the waiting room of the dispensary, there is displayed this notice, which I hold in my hand. It points out that people are not entitled to go there for treatment of their animals if they can afford the treatment fees of a vet and the notice gives prominently the names and addresses of two nearby veterinary surgeons, to whom people who visit the P.D.S.A. should go if they can afford to pay a fee. I hope the House will recognise that and that we shall not have the suggestion made in any way that the P.D.S.A. is taking the bread out of the mouth of the qualified practitioner.
We should also recognise—I hope the House will have this in mind during the remarks I shall have to make later—that the P.D.S.A. is a quite unique institution with forty years' experience of dealing charitably with the sick animals of the poor, that probably the Society knows best how to manage its own affairs, and in its wisdom makes an essential feature of the organisation the maintaining of an open house, round the clock, dispensing. An important point to which I should like the general assent of the House, is that if the Society sees fit to arrange its affairs in that way then that is how it should arrange them—not in any other way.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Is the hon. Member suggesting, therefore, that the Society has more experience than the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has eighty-nine clinics and which was founded and started in 1824?

Mr. Iremonger: I am suggesting that forty years' experience in treating the animals of the poor in these special circumstances is enough to make us take with a proper degree of humility the opinion of the P.D.S.A. as to what is the proper way to run its own business. Others may differ, but I feel we should accept that the P.D.S.A. has a right to its opinion on that matter based on forty years' experience. No doubt others would say that it should run on a part-time basis, but I do not accept that. I ask the House to accept that the Society has been doing this for a long time for a good reason.
I have outlined the nature of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals and want now to explain against that background the particular difficulty which the P.D.S.A. found itself in when negotiating with the Ministry and other interested parties at the time of the introduction of the Veterinary Surgeons Bill in 1947 and in considering the various provisions which should be made in the interim period before that Measure was catering for a fully-established veterinary profession. The whole organisation of the P.D.S.A. is based upon a grade of officer who is constantly in attendance at the various dispensaries and who has been trained—I will develop that point later —by the Society to carry out minor surgery and medical treatment for animals.
It was apparent from the very beginning that these people, vital to the P.D.S.A. organisation, were to be prohibited from carrying on their professional practice by the terms of the Act. The P.D.S.A. accepts the principles of the Act and its intention is that it shall employ 100 per cent. qualified vets., and nobody else, as soon as it can; but it was recognised universally that there would be a transitional period during which it would be necessary to make some provision for P.D.S.A. to employ these people upon whom the whole organisation was based. The Government recognised this difficulty and various solutions were proposed. Among the solutions put forward at that

time was what I will call the part-time solution. It was that the Society should employ the services part-time of qualified practitioners and back those services by unqualified lay practitioners who would in fact have no entitlement to perform any surgery or to prescribe medical treatment.
It is of vital importance to the argument which I hope the House will follow and accept that we should get it straight from now that at the time when the Bill was being negotiated this part-time principle was categorically refused by the Ministry.

Mr, Thomas Williams: That is not so.

Mr. Iremonger: The right hon. Member for Don Valley says that is not ture. I should be glad to let him have what I will call the Ministerial pronouncement of 26th November, 1947, which I have in my hand. It is a note of a meeting with representatives of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals at 99, Gresham Street. No doubt the right hon. Member will recognise that address. That meeting was held on Wednesday, 26th November, 1947, when there were present, for the Ministry, three officials and, for the College and the P.D.S.A. their own representatives. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to study this paper he will see that it is absolute proof that at that stage the part-time principle was discussed and was dismissed by the Ministry as being objectionable. I know they have forgotten about it since; that is the whole point. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Don Valley has been so conveniently helpful as to tell me that he has forgotten about it, too.
I am glad that my hon. Friend is sending his Parliamentary Private Secretary to chase this matter up; I know that he has forgotten about it and I doubt whether he can find it, but I have not forgotten about it and I should be only too glad to let him see this copy. It is a very important point, and I say to my hon. Friend, with all good will, "Please do not come any of this anti part-time stuff with me now, because it is damned out of your own mouth." I do not want to inconvenience his Parliamentary Private Secretary, and there is no reason that he should not take this document from me now. I am not a tainted source. This is the actual document, and I will


place it down here in a convenient no man's land; and I will ask the Minister to bend his mind to this paper and to see whether he can get any other interpretation out of it. I have tried and I could not do so. Now that my hon. Friend has the paper, I hope that he will not be distracted from what I am saying by studying it, because what I have to say is important and I want him to understand it fully.
I come now to another cardinal point of my case, which is that, having rejected the part-time solution, the eventual solution adopted was that the full-time dispensary workers who were so important to the P.D.S.A. should be licensed to carry out work which they were carrying out at the time.

Dr. Stross: Dr. Stross rose——

Mr. Iremonger: I will gladly give way to the hon. Member if I may first conclude this short stage in my argument. I am saying that the eventual solution decided upon was that these people should be licensed. I have a licence in my hand. It provides that they should be entitled
without fear of prosecution to give medical treatment or for the relief of pain to perform superficial operations which do not involve amputation of a limb or incision into the body cavities or incision into or removal of any organ.
That is the licence which was eventually decided upon as the solution.

Dr. Stross: I should be very happy if the hon. Gentleman would help me fully to understand his argument. We are all interested in this matter or we should not be listening to his most interesting speech. Is it his case that the Society will not accept part-time service by veterinary surgeons now because the Ministry, as it alleges, did not like the idea of part-time work in 1947 or 1948? Of is it his argument that the Society itself, irrespective of what the Ministry thought then or may think now, does not like part-time work? Lastly—and this is the important point —assuming that the hon. Member is mistaken and that the Society is mistaken about the view held by the Ministry then, or assuming that the Ministry has now changed its mind or has changed it for some years, would that alter the hon. Member's view?

Mr. Iremonger: No, that would not alter my view. The point which the hon.

Member raised is absolutely fair and it is desirable that the questions which he asked should be answered. I have incorporated the answers to them in the course of my remarks. I will deal with the points fully. I must deal with the part-time issue, which is quite crucial, and I think the hon. Member will find that in the course of my remarks I will answer those three points specifically. If I do not, I hope he will clarify this issue. I do not want to dodge it. Indeed, I am most anxious to deal with it exhaustively, but it would not be as convenient to deal with it now as to do so a little later.
I have informed the House that the solution to the difficulty was that these licences should be issued to tide over the transitional period. The issue of these licences was eventually governed by what became Section 7 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act. That is the Section under which all the trouble has arisen. I want to make the point to the Minister—and I hope he will not gainsay me on this—that the insertion of Clause 7 into the Bill was the condition of its unopposed passage through the House. It was inserted in order to solve this admitted difficulty, which, had it not been solved, would have been an objection to the Bill. In putting in Clause 7 and in agreeing to operate it fairly he gained the wholehearted support of the P.D.S.A. I therefore think that it is doubly imperative that he should bend his mind to satisfying himself that he is operating it satisfactorily and fairly. I am afraid that I shall have to raise doubts on that question with the House.
We should note that Section 7 provides that
Where … the Minister … is satisfied"—
this is most important—
that the society … cannot obtain the services of an adequate number of veterinary surgeons"—
it says nothing about part-time—
the Minister may, if he thinks fit, grant a licence …
We have got to the licensing system, and I would ask the House to notice what are the characteristics of the licensing system which the Minister has to operate. At this stage I ought to put on record a letter from the right hon. Member for Don Valley, dated 18th December. 1947, addressed to Lord Amwell, in which occurs an important passage which


we should take into account in judging the way in which the Section has been, is being and should be administered. The right hon. Gentleman said this, and my hon. Friend is bound by it:
The intention would be that as and when the supply"—
nothing to do with part-time supply—
of veterinary surgeons improves the number of licences would be reduced"—
that is admitted, and the object of the Society is that we should reduce them—
due regard being had to any extension of the Society's work to poor districts not already covered.
The Minister could not have said more plainly, "We will give you the licences which you need as long as you cannot get these services"—I maintain that he meant only full-time services—"not only to maintain your present organisation but as necessary to expand it." If it would be convenient I could supply a copy of that document, too.
The other point about the licensing system which I think the House ought to take into account is that these licencees were not just casual strangers employed on the spur of the moment by the P.D.S.A. They were fully trained people.
In case anybody has any doubts about it, I have here the curriculum for the training of these people whom the Minister undertook to licence in order to tide the Society over the shortage of veterinary surgeons. Here is the list of the educational staff. There are four permanent staff lecturers, the first of whom is an Officer of the Order of the British Empire, a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and holder of the Diploma of Veterinary Hygiene. The visiting lecturers are two in number—a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons, and a Bachelor of Medicine.
To put this curriculum into effect there is a four-year course, in the first year of which the following subjects are covered: anatomy and physiology; first aid; humane destruction; diagnosis and therapeutics; dietetics, hygiene, animal husbandry, histology and homoeopathy. In the second year, the same subjects are covered, with the addition of pharmacy —and so on for the four years of the course.
The time spent on these subjects—and I read them out in the order in which they occur—is as follows: 120, 30, 30, 60, 30,

30, 60, 60, and 24 hours. That is hardly a casual or sketchy arrangement. These are the people whom the P.D.S.A. has, for lack of better material, been training to look after the sick animals of the poor; these are the people whom the Minister promised to licence, and these are the people who are still needed.
At the time of the passage of the Bill through the House it was doubted whether this licensing system would be operated in a reasonable spirit. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)—whom I am sorry to have seen has just left his place—quite rightly spotted a flaw in the Bill. In Standing Committee A, which considered the Bill, he asked the then Parliamentary Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper, how we were to know whether the Minister was properly satisfied as to whether there were adequate supplies of veterinary surgeons.
I will tell the House what happened. During the Committee stage, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr moved an Amendment to Clause 7. I shall not weary the House with what it was, because it was just a method of getting clarification and assurance on this very point. This is what my hon. Friend said:
It merely means that we would like the Minister to state some definite terms when he considers that qualified veterinary surgeons are available or not.
That is exactly the situation in which we are today, and the answer which my hon. Friend got I propose to refer to in the subsequent course of my remarks as the "Belper Declaration," as this was said 'by the right hon. Member for Belper who was then the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. On behalf of the Government, he said:
I hope the hon. and gallant Member will be satisfied with the assurance that we will he reasonable about this, …
Earlier the right hon. Gentleman had said:
There is no intention of refusing to issue any veterinary licences unless, in fact, the Minister is satisfied that there are an adequate number of veterinary surgeons available for the societies to employ."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 24th June. 1948; c. 1482.]
I repeat—"employ." There was nothing about their being employed on a part-time basis, or about an adequate number of part-time surgeons. Therefore, when the difficulty which has arisen now


was foreseen in 1948 and the Government were challenged with it, they said "Don't worry about that, we'll play fair." It was a gentleman's agreement. It suffered the disadvantage of all gentleman's agreements, that one needs two gentlemen——

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: Really.

Mr. Iremonger: My hon. and gallant Friend says "really", but when he has heard what is to come he will really blush for what has been done in the name of successive Ministers. I am not blaming them. They forget these things. We have already seen one right hon. Gentleman who has forgotten, but the way in which the "Belper Declaration" has been carried out has been little short of scandalous.
Right from the very beginning, as soon as licences were applied for, far from being reasonable the attitude of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries has been procrastinating, and obstinate to the point of sheer cussedness.

Mr. Ellis Smith: A Government Department.

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman says "Government Department". I do not know whether that is a query or a clarification, but it is a Government Department for which right hon. and hon. Members are responsible to this House, and for which we as Members are responsible. I am not satisfied with what has happened, and that is why I am on my hind legs now inviting the hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Harold Davies: The hon. Gentleman will not get support by taking this attitude.

Mr. Iremonger: As the hon. Member has already put down his name to the Amendment against the Second Reading, I think that my chance of winning his support is a long one in any event.
I am accusing the Ministry of having administered this Section with an un-reasonableness and an obstinacy amounting to cussedness, and I would not say so unless I was prepared to substantiate my words, which I will now proceed to do.
Matters had run for two years, and this was the state of affairs that prevailed in 1950. I have here a copy of the

memorandum submitted by the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals following a meeting with representatives of the Ministry and of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons on 30th October, 1950, In this memorandum, the Dispensary says:
The Council of the P.D.S.A. are strongly of the opinion that an independent public enquiry should be established, with evidence to be taken on oath, the terms of reference to embrace the subject of the employment of veterinary surgeons by animal welfare societies, investigations of methods carried out by the profession and societies in respect of employment, the availability of veterinary surgeons, and when and in what way Section 7 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act should become effective.
In fact, for two years there had been so little co-operation and reasonableness that the People's Dispensary was calling for a public inquiry. It was quite obvious that something was wrong, because an inquiry was granted. Therefore, I cannot be so very wrong in claiming that all was not as reasonable as the "Belper Declaration" had led us to hope. The Minister's attitude to the public inquiry was, I think, rather revealing. It was stated through the Chairman of the Committee that met subsequently to consider that memorandum:
The Chairman said that he doubted whether the Minister would agree to setting up such an inquiry as envisaged …
What was the objection? What inquiry was it that the Minister objected to? He objected to a public inquiry. He wanted a private inquiry. That, in fact, is what he got, and as a result of this representation by the People's Dispensary an inquiry was instituted. A Committee was set up under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East, and it subsequently reported. These were its terms of reference:
To examine and advise me upon the problems raised by applications for licences under Section 7"—
and so forth; I do not think I need read the rest. The interesting thing is that this private Departmental Committee was set up by the Minister who was not prepared to have a public inquiry. Having seen what happened, I have come to the conclusion that the Minister did not want a public inquiry because if he had said to a public inquiry, "Advise me," it might have taken him too literally. When he said that the terms of reference were
To advise me upon the problems


he knew that when he arranged to have as Chairman of the Committee his hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East, who subsequently became Parliamentary Secretary of his own Department, his hon. Friend would understand that the advice he wanted on the problem was advice on how to get out of his obligations under the Act.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene? He is making very serious allegations, and I think that, in fairness, he should tell the House exactly who were the members of the Committee and something about the things which the Committee eventually reported upon.

Mr. Iremonger: My hon. Friend is anticipating. I hope he does not assume that I am dismissing the Committee in my introductory remarks. I have hardly begun; I have many a rod in pickle for him. My hon. Friend says that I should say who were the members of the Committee. He anticipates me by a short head, because I was about to read out the constitution of the Committee. The Chairman was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East. Other members of the Committee were Sir Robert Hyde, Mr. Roche Lynch. Professor Medawar, and Mr. Claud Mullins. It is generally referred to as the Champion Committee. Some people think that is because of the name of the hon. Gentleman who presided, and others think it is because it championed the cause of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
The Committee actually sat and considered this problem, and came up with the desired result. It provided the then Minister with a very good way of getting out of granting any more licences. My own view is that the Committee was mesmerised by the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and that the conclusions it came to were mistaken and grossly unfair to the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. Furthermore, in implementing the decisions of this Committee, successive Governments have done less than justice to the Society. I will go on to show what I mean.
The Champion Committee made, broadly speaking—I hope the House will

accept this as being for the purposes of our argument a fair summary—three recommendations, which I now wish to examine in turn. First, it recommended that the Society should employ part-time veterinary surgeons supervising lay officers. The hoary old chestnut about part-time surgeons was brought up again. Next, it recommended that the Society should, and implied that the Society, if it wanted to, could, employ more— indeed, enough—whole-time veterinary surgeons. Thirdly, it made certain recommendations in paragraph 77 of its Report, with which I will deal.
The suggestion about part-time veterinary surgeons was meant to enable the Society to carry on its work without the help of the licensees whom it had trained and wanted to license. I want to say categorically that the part-time principle is totally unacceptable to the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals as an alternative to licensees or whole-time veterinary surgeons. It is perfectly legitimate for anybody to dissent from that view, but that is the view of the Society. I object to the Minister, whoever he may be, advancing this as a valid argument, because I maintain that he is damned out of his own mouth, having said it was unacceptable previously. An hon. Member says, "Quite rightly". He may have changed his mind since, because he had forgotten all about it. But all the same, it is quite legitimate. If he has changed his mind, we shall be interested to hear, and hear it with regret.
The second and main objection I have to the part-time principle is this. The whole organisation and structure of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals is based upon maintaining a 24-hour service at dispensaries. To the merits of that service we have in this House already paid tribute, and it would be deplorable if, through failure to carry out the administrative provisions of a Section in the Act which was accepted and implemented in good faith, we should oblige the Society entirely to reverse its policy and reverse the method of organisation in carrying out its duties which it has decided, over forty years, is the one best suited to its purpose.
I am perfectly well aware that what I say is open to objection. I myself frankly say, having considered the matter, that I do not accept that the Minister ought now


to turn round and say that he is in favour of the part-time principle; and, whether he is in favour of it or not. I do not consider it right that the P.D.S.A. should have it rammed down its neck whether it likes it or not. The position of the Society is quite simple. For its organisation to continue, it must have an adequate supply of licensees or an adequate supply of full-time veterinary surgeons. The latter is the position, of course, to which it is working and that is what it wants to do.
I now address myself to the second and most important point made by the Champion Committee, which was that the Society ought to employ full-time veterinary surgeons. The question really is, is there or is there not an adequate supply of veterinary surgeons for the Society to employ whole-time? One can apply various tests. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr said that it would be very difficult to decide. We must try to decide it. It is vitally important to the matter we are arguing in the House tonight. Are there enough veterinary surgeons for whole-time work or not?
I propose to call in evidence my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. On 17th May, 1956, he was being pressed to urge local authorities to use the services of veterinary surgeons in inspecting meat in slaughterhouses. This is the exchange which took place. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Sir F. Medlicott) said:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities would very warmly welcome any assistance that can he given to them by veterinary surgeons?
The Minister's reply, which gives me the evidence on the point, was:
I agree with my hon. Friend on that, and he will agree with me that there is at present a shortage of veterinary surgeons."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May. 1956; Vol. 552, c. 2197.]
If, when it comes to inspecting the meat of the people there is a shortage of veterinary officers, there surely cannot be an adequate supply when it conies to meeting the obligations under Section 7 of the Act.
We do not expect from right hon. Members on the Treasury Bench in this House the kind of double standard that we have come to expect from President Eisenhower in the matter of Israel and Egypt. We expect that if there is a shortage one

day, there will not be an adequate supply when it suits him on another day.
Do not let us merely accept the words of the Minister; they may have been inadvertent or used in another sense or he may not have wished them to be taken in this way, and I do not want to take an unfair advantage; but I think that we might put it in the scale and put something else in the scale, too. Let us put the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons in the scale and see, when it comes to proving, if proof there can be, whether there is an adequate supply of veterinary surgeons for the P.D.S.A. to employ whole-time? What do they say? This is from the minutes of the third meeting of the joint consultative committee of the College of the British Veterinary Association and the P.D.S.A., held at the House of Commons under the chairmanship of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper. I will read to the House paragraph 3 of the minutes.

Captain Duncan: On what date?

Mr. Iremonger: It was on 17th February, 1955. I am grateful to be reminded about the date because the date is crucial. It is a recent date. Paragraph 3 of the minutes states:
In reply to a request by the R.C.V.S. representatives for information concerning salary scales and terms and conditions of employment of veterinary surgeons, the P.D.S.A. representatives said that it had already been agreed that the P.D.S.A. did not intend to start below the Ministry's minimum scale. The commencing figure was £575 which, after three or six months' probationary service, became £600, and then there were three annual increments of £25, after which it was a matter of arrangement.
These were the terms being offered by the P.D.S.A.
At that meeting the representative of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons was Professor W. G. Wright. I now continue to quote from the minutes. The next sentence is:
Professor Wright accepted these terms on behalf of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.
So if we are to use the salary test for determinine whether or not there is an adequate supply of veterinary surgeons, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has gone on record as having said that the P.D.S.A. was paying enough at the time of that meeting, and since then it has raised its scale by 8½ per cent.

Mr. H. Hynd: What does that prove?

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Gentleman anticipates me. I was about to say what that proved.
What we are getting at is whether there is an adequate supply and we are trying to find some measure for an adequate supply. I am suggestng that one of the methods of testing whether there is an adequate supply is whether we can get people for an agreed fair salary. I think that the hon. Gentleman will follow my point.

Mr. Hynd: I understand that that is what the hon. Member is trying to prove, but I could not see that his argument was going in that direction. The hon. Member is being so prolix in his arguments that I am finding it very difficult to focus on one argument.

Mr. Iremonger: The argument is perfectly simple. The crucial point is whether there is an adequate supply and I am saying that the Minister said, "There is not an adequate supply." I am also saying that now that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has proved that there is not an adequate supply, as well as the Minister, because it is agreed that the salaries offered by the P.D.S.A. were fair salaries and the P.D.S.A. still cannot get veterinary surgeons to take on the work at those fair salaries. I think that if we cannot get anything on the market at an agreed fair price it is one way of defining a shortage.

Mr. Tom Brown: Would the hon. Member tell the House that from the year 1948, when the Bill was put upon the Statute Book, to the year 1953 the number of qualified veterinary surgeons increased by 800 and now stands at over 4,000, so there is no inadequacy there?

Mr. Iremonger: What the hon. Gentleman says may be true so far as it goes; but it is a fact that if there are 4,000 or 4 million veterinary surgeons or loaves of bread put into the market that does not mean that there is not a shortage. The shortage is determined by how far that supply meets the demand and that is determined by how far the fair price offered will command the supply. Here it does not.

Dr. Stross: Is not there another possible explanation? May I put it to the hon. Member in this way? Is not it possible that veterinary surgeons when they qualify and after qualification are not at all certain in their minds that their work with this particular society would really extend them sufficiently to make it worth their while to offer themselves and that they might prefer work which really extends their knowledge and gives them fuller and more real experience? That may be the case.

Mr. Iremonger: That may well be the case, but if so it is a very serious position indeed because it means that nothing will ever stop this rot. I think that it is accepted on all sides that the solution is that the P.D.S.A. should and will eventually be able to employ whole-time veterinary surgeons at a fair salary. If it cannot, that is a totally different problem and a very much greater and more serious one.
The point that I am making is this. It is no use saying to a man in Germany, for example, in the runaway inflation of the 20's, that if he pays enough he can get a loaf of bread, and saying to him, "You have only to pay 1 million marks; there is no shortage." The fact is that there is a shortage because he has not the 1 million marks to pay for it. I put it to my hon. Friend that there is a shortage in this case. There is not an adequate supply and in giving way to the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons he is acceding to an attempt to exploit on behalf of the veterinary profession a shortage and to gain for its members inflated salaries which cannot be afforded by a charity which has the duty of treating free the sick animals of the poor.
I think that is a totally unacceptable position. It is from that difficulty that this Bill which is now before the House tries to extricate the Minister. It removes from him the difficulty of deciding whether he should grant these licences. It recognises that he is in the grip of a kind of Dick Turpin with a policeman's helmet and a parson's collar in the shape of the Royal College, who is saying to him, "There is an adequate supply if you pay an inflated price", and I think that he ought to say no to that, but he cannot say no to it. Let us get him out of that difficulty by this Bill, which provides in Clause 3 that the society should


represent to the Minister that it cannot claim the services of an adequate number of veterinary surgeons and that the Minister shall then either grant them licences or submit the question to an independent inquiry. I do not see why the Minister should not take that way out which is a much easier way than appointing a Committee to make a different interpretation of Section 7. I really commend to him that he should use this method of extricating himself from a position which I think it is very undesirable that he should be in and which is inflicting a great deal of hardship on this very worthy organisation.
If the Minister does not do that he will be hampering this charity and penalising the poor in the care of their animals. I know that it is almost impossible for hon. Members, who come into this House on a matter like this, to be generous and to give way. I know how quickly once, one has set one's feet in it the cement hardens. I know that it would be very difficult. But I think my right hon. Friend might say to his hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench, "Let's let up on this and look at it again".
Do not let the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons mesmerise the House. After all this is only the Second Reading of the Bill. It will have to go upstairs to Committee. If, after the Committee has thought it over and perhaps hon. Gentlemen have discussed it with their friends outside the House, they come to the conclusion that justice has not been done entirely, they may let the Bill go through. If they decide I am wrong, they can defeat the Bill on Third Reading. I hope, however, that they will not throw it out without giving appropriate weight to the arguments that have been advanced in its favour just because they are predisposed against it. I am afraid that if they do so, they will be perpetrating an injustice.
Whatever happens, I say this to my hon. Friend. We do not accept the part-time argument. We do not accept that it is possible to get full-time veterinary surgeons. We suggest that my hon. Friend should extricate himself from this difficulty by accepting this Bill. If he cannot do that, will he at least please search his conscience in connection with paragraph 77 of the Champion Report?
I will try to put it so that it will not be necessary to read the paragraph. What has happened is that paragraph 77 recommended that twenty-six licences should be issued to existing employees of the society and, broadly speaking, it made the issue of them subject to two provisos. One proviso was that they should be current for ten years only and the other was that none should be issued after the end of 1953.
Both of those provisos were unreasonable and one of them was quite shocking. I immediately concede to my hon. Friend that he has not accepted the shocking proviso. He chucked it out, and all honour to him. The shocking proviso was that these people should be licensed for only ten years. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), who was Chairman of the Committee, what was shocking about it was how he could have put that proviso into the Report of his Committee.

Mr. Champion: Mr. Champion rose——

Mr. Iremonger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, because I have not finished with him yet. How he could put that proviso into the Report——

Dr. Stross: If the hon. Gentleman will give way, my hon. Friend will tell him.

Mr. Iremonger: But the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East has not yet heard the full horror of what he did.

Mr. Champion: Since the hon. Gentleman has challenged me and has named me, the least he can do it to give way. He has read only a part of the proviso. Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 92 of the 1952 Report stated clearly:
No licences should be granted under Section 7 of the Act of 1948 after the end of 1953 unless the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is satisfied that neither the full-time nor the part-time services of veterinary surgeons are available.
If the hon. Gentleman is going to challenge the Committee and its work, let him do it on a fair basis.

Mr. Iremonger: I accept that absolutely.

Mr. Champion: I thank the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Iremonger: I have not started to deal with the 1953 point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, dear."] I really am sorry that hon. Members think it is a matter of "Oh, dear". I can assure them that it is also a matter of "Oh, dear" for the people concerned. I am sorry if I am detaining the House in trying to do my duty to my constituents, but this is really not good enough.
Returning to the two provisos, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East has challenged my interpretation of the 1953 point. I will come to that. If I may have his attention for a moment, what I said was so shocking was that he should have recommended in the report of his Committee that these licences should be issued for a period of ten years only. If he did not recommend that, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Champion: It was recommended, definitely.

Mr. Iremonger: I have said, and I am prepared to substantiate, that it was shocking that this should have been recommended, and I will explain why. Had the hon. Gentleman taken the trouble to read the Standing Committee Report of the debate on the Bill, he would have found that the then Member for Southall had put down an Amendment precisely to that effect, and that his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), on behalf of the Government, had rejected it. He said he wondered whether the people who put down the Amendment—
… have really thought what they are proposing? It means that a society may now employ a man, who will give himself up to this benevolent job, and may in 10 years' time cast him off. It means the society would say, 'You have served us while we have needed you. You have served a purpose. You have done a good job for 10 years. Now your licence has elapsed. Goodbye and God bless you.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 24th June, 1948, c. 1484.]
To his credit, that is what the right hon. Member for Belper said in the Standing Committee in rejecting an Amendment making precisely the point which, five years later, the Champion Committee, if I may say so with great respect, had the effrontery to trump up again. That is why I say it is shocking that this suggestion should have been made. In case the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East is inclined to

suggest that he has since repented, I would point out that only on Monday of this week he asked, in a supplementary question to a Question which I asked my right hon. Friend:
Were the 17 licences which were granted limited to the ten-year period as recommended by the Committee?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 8.]
So he confirmed that the Committee recommended it. Indeed, he seemed to take pride in it. He did not even seem to know that the Minister, to his credit, had rejected it, as he was bound to do, and as the Government rejected the idea when the Bill was in Committee.
That is the shocking proviso, if I may so call it. The other proviso was that no licences should be issued after 1953. I will classify that as not shocking but simply unreasonable. I will point out why it is unreasonable, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not try to see any way out of this. Perhaps they will put themselves in the position of the employees of the P.D.S.A., who were the people whose life work was to be conditioned by, and whose training was to be based upon, the assumption that these licences would be issued.
This is the position that has arisen. The twenty-six licences were to be issued by the end of 1953 according to the Champion Committee. After the committee reported, seventeen were issued straight away to people who had been trained. The House has already studied with my help the extent of that training —a four-year course. Those seventeen licences were issued to the people who had been trained. That left a balance of nine.
In the subsequent year, in February, 1953, before the time limit demanded by the Champion Committee had even run out, one man completed his training, and he came then under the recommendation. Presumably because there was considered to be an adequate supply, which I do not accept, the licence was refused. This man, who was promised a licence within a certain period, applied for it as soon as he had finished his training, and was refused simply because the Minister, apparently on some mystical conception, was satisfied that there was an adequate supply of veterinary surgeons. I just cannot accept that. We can let some Ministers, especially those who have as high a place in our regard as my hon.


Friend, get away with almost anything, but this will not do. It is a flagrant and open breach of promise in the case that I have in mind.
That leaves the other eight who are now in the position that they have started their training having at one stage had an assurance that on completing their training they would receive licences. They have now seen this man turned down after finishing his training in the promised period. What do they feel? They have lost heart. They have been thwarted halfway through the training for their careers.
The House ought not to take this lightly. I can see no justification for it. I implore my hon. Friend to discharge his debt of honour to these nine men. Although he may find excuses for refusal in eight cases, surely he cannot allow the ninth person to be victimised through this cruel deception. Now I have this off my conscience, I shall give my hon. Friend every possible assistance in putting the matter right. I know that my right hon. Friend will be generous when he looks into the matter. I do not blame the Minister, his predecessor or any other right hon. Gentleman for what has happened. They have been in the position of the people who were playing the piano in the room downstairs. I ask the House——

Mr. H. Hynd: What is the joke about the piano downstairs?

Mr. Iremonger: I do not for a moment think that the hon. Gentleman does not know.
I ask the House to recognise that the carrying out of the undertakings given when the previous Measure was before the House has been a very sorry record. Consequently, I ask the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill, for I think the promoters are fully justified in putting it forward because of the way they have been treated. I ask the House at least to make the gesture of giving it a Second Reading so that there will be a possibility of remedying a most sincerely felt grievance. It is an injustice which reflects ill upon the honour of the House.

8.23 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The marathon speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford,

North (Mr. Iremonger) shows the weakness of his case. The language which he used on certain occasions about the "Vets' Lobby" and his accusations of cussedness against the Ministry rather spoilt what was in any event a weak case. He never explained the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Iremonger: My hon. and gallant Friend——

Captain Duncan: I do not wish to give way. I did not interrupt my hon. Friend.

Mr. Iremonger: Mr. Iremonger rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): If the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not give way, the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) must sit down.

Mr. Iremonger: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me categorically to deny what he has said. 1 pointed out that Clause 3 referred licence questions to an independent inquiry.

Captain Duncan: The Bill has two main purposes. It seeks to perpetuate in time and quantity the unqualified treatment of animals. It also seeks to abolish the discretion given to the Minister of Agriculture under the 1948 Act, so that if an independent referee appointed by the Lord Chancellor tells him to give a licence, he then has virtually no discretion to refuse. That is the issue before us.
Before I go any further—I do not want to be anything like as long as my hon. Friend was—I wish to say that I am not speaking as a member of the "Vets' Lobby" or anything like that. All I am seeking to do is to ask the House to refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading on the ground that it is not public policy at this stage in the history of the nation to allow unqualified people to treat animals, whether they be the animals of the rich or the animals of the poor. The overriding consideration must be the humane treatment of our animals in present circumstances and in the future. The bad days prior to the 1948 Act are gone for ever and should not be perpetuated.
I must go a little into the history of this affair. Some years ago a Committee, presided over by Sir John Chancellor, was appointed, and it presented a Report out of which arose the 1948 Act which was


passed through Parliament by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) by agreement. It was a great step forward, because Parliament decided that from that date the treatment of animals should be under-taken only by qualified people.
It was, however, recognised at the time that the step had to be gradual, and that was the reason for the insertion of Section 7, which provided that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries should have discretion to grant a licence under the Section to any person employed or to be employed by any society or institution which was supported by voluntary contributions. That was accepted by the House.
However, it did not work very well, and there were difficulties, mainly with the P.D.S.A. The right hon. Member for Don Valley eventually appointed the Champion Committee, the Committee presided over by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), which went into the whole matter. I will not read the terms of reference, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North has done so already. The Committee devoted a good deal of time and a good deal of space in its Report to the P.D.S.A. position. Two things came out of the Report. The first was that there seemed to be a good deal of overlapping by animal welfare societies, and the second was that it was no longer as necessary as it was originally to grant licences. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East has already read the paragraph, but I think that I should read it again. It is:
… no licences be granted … unless the Minister is satisfied that neither the full-time nor the part-time services of veterinary surgeons are available.
It is interesting to read the reservation by Mr. Claud Mullins, a member of the Committee, who said:
If the steps that we recommend in paragraph 88 are taken by the Minister."—
That deals with the overlapping of the societies—
the evidence that we have heard convinces me that there must follow a considerable reduction in the activities of licensees. This being so, there should he no need for the fresh licences recommended in paragraphs 75 to 78.
The licences were, none the less, given. It was stated that 26 would be needed, but in fact 17 were asked for and granted at that time.
At that time we hoped that things would go on reasonably well, but the P.D.S.A. was still not satisfied. Various conferences took place among the Royal College, the P.D.S.A. and the Minister. This matter of licences was always being raised by the P.D.S.A. At a meeting on Wednesday, 24th March, 1954, Sir George Dunnett, one of the officials of the Ministry in the chair, and the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals, the Royal College and the B.V.A. represented, Mr. Bassett, speaking for the P.D.S.A., said that as the P.D.S.A. would not be applying for any further licences under Section 7, it would not be necessary at these joint discussions to consider point by point the report of the Champion Committee. It seems to me that at that time the P.D.S.A. had abandoned the idea of asking for more licences.
Nevertheless, in 1956 it came to light, through a Bill promoted by the P.D.S.A., that four people had been left out. They had been left out for special reasons, the reasons being that the licensees under the Champion Committee's Report should have practised in the United Kingdom. There were four people who within ten years previously had not been practising in the United Kingdom but had been in Tangier, Cairo, one in India and elsewhere. In a special Bill last year, the House granted them the licences and, as far as I know, they are now employed by the Dispensary.
The Bill of 1956 went to a Select Committee presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins). There was the usual cross-examination by counsel and so on which takes place before a Select Committee. I want to give an extract from the Minutes. Perhaps I should explain that the Bill was fairly widely drawn. It was concerned originally not only with the four people but was more widely drawn. Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence, the counsel cross-examining Mr. Bridges Webb, the Chairman of the Dispensary, asked:
… I want if I can to understand this Bill. and I am sure that the Committee do, too. Could you tell me first of all what it is your Society really wants by this clause 6 in the Bill?
The answer was:
It wants to correct an injustice to four of our most senior men, which I have already described, which prevents them going on the


Supplementary Register. If their names are put on to that Register, then that is an end of our problem.
The Minutes continue:
Q. Then I am right in thinking, am I not, that the sole object of this Clause is to secure admission to the Register of these four men? A. That is all.
Q. And nothing beyond that? A. Nothing whatever.
It seems to me that from the two quotations——

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order. The Bill which we are discussing deals with the issue of licences under Section 7 of the 1948 Act. The matter to which my hon. and gallant Friend is now referring is, I submit, out of order, because it deals with the putting on to the supplementary register of the College people who are not asking for licences under Section 7 but are a totally different category of people altogether, who wish to go on to the supplementary register of the College. That is quite a different matter, and it is absolutely outside the ambit of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think the hon. and gallant Member was out of order.

Captain Duncan: For those reasons, it seems to me that in 1954, the idea was that no more licences were required.
I now turn to the question of the accuracy of the statements made with regard to the number of veterinary surgeons. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) in an interruption, referred to some figures. I want to bring those figures up to date. At the end of 1949 there were 4,929 veterinary surgeons on the United Kingdom register, but at the end of 1956 the figure had risen to 5,980. That is a 20 per cent. increase.
As far as I can make out from my connection with the Royal College, there should now be no difficulty at all—provided the salaries offered are sufficient—for the P.D.S.A. to employ, either upon a whole-time or a part-time basis, fully qualified surgeons, and thus do away with the need for any more licences.

Mr. Norman Dodds: When the hon. and gallant Member began his speech, he said that he was not from the "Lobby" of the Royal College.

Captain Duncan: That is right.

Mr. Dodds: A few seconds ago he explained his connection with the Royal College. Will he explain from where the document from which he has quoted comes, and whom he is representing, so that we shall be able to appreciate the value of his speech?

Captain Duncan: I thought that the hon. Member knew that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and I were appointed by the Privy Council to be members of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons under the 1948 Act. I am in exactly the same position as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Sir W. Anstruther-Gray), who is the House of Commons Privy Council representative on the General Medical Council. There is no normal vested interest in this matter.
I want to say a word about the position of the Minister. Under Section 7 of the 1948 Act the Minister has complete discretion—and he uses it—in the matter of granting or refusing licences. I am quite prepared to say that if the Minister chooses to license additional people for work in the P.D.S.A. it will be found that the Royal College will co-operate. But to threaten, as the P.D.S.A. does in the Bill, to take away the discretion of the Minister and leave to an independent referee, appointed by the Lord Chancellor, seems to me to be an insult to the Minister. In those circumstances, I submit that we should refuse to give the Bill a Second Reading.
I hope, therefore, that in moving, That the Bill be read this day six months, I shall receive the support of the House on the general grounds of humanity, and because, in this day and century, we should seek to ensure that in the future no one who is not properly qualified shall treat animals, whether for the poor or for the rich. I know that it is easy to make a sentimental appeal, and I concede that. But I believe it wrong, as was stated in the Report of the Champion Committee, that there should be for a day longer than necessary the possibility of unqualified people, however willing they are, treating animals and, perhaps, treating them wrongly. I do not believe that would meet with the wishes of kindly people.
I beg to move, to leave out "now" and at the end of the Question to add "upon this day six months."

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I apologise to you for not raising this matter earlier, but I did not want to intervene during the peroration of my hon. and gallant Friend. It seemed from his closing remarks that my hon. and gallant Friend was under the impression that he was moving, That this Bill be read upon this day six months. I thought he was speaking to the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. and gallant Gentleman was moving, That the Bill be read upon this day six months.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Williams: I intervene only for a few minutes to second the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill. The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) supported the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill in such a brief speech and in such a kindly and gentlemanly manner. So far as I can understand, from some of the things he said during the hour and fifteen minutes he was speaking, the bon. Member considers that he is the only gentleman left in the Chamber. That is very nice so long as he thinks it—perhaps he is the only one who does. I wish to restate the view I expressed in 1948, which has since been strengthened by subsequent events.
It was perfectly obvious that the hon. Member for Ilford, North knew very little about the Bill. He relied largely on abuse of individuals, Government Departments and others to make the case he tried to put to the House. I think he failed lamentably to gain the support of hon. Members who might possibly have been inclined to support him. The hon. Gentleman is the best destroyer of a Bill that I have listened to for a long time.
In 1948, I was responsible for introducing the Veterinary Surgeons Act, and I had, at the same time, to deal with this problem of the People's Dispensary for Sick Animals. There were at that time —there had been for a long time before the Bill was introduced—acute differences between the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the P.D.S.A. I happened to know something about the difficulty of trying to get those two bodies together to see sweet reason, and to approach the problem in a spirit of compromise, and, ultimately, to find a solution to something which already had been

examined by a committee to which I shall refer in a moment.
The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, not unnaturally, wished to put an end to the practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons, and the P.D.S.A., not unnaturally, took the totally opposite view. In the end, though after very long discussions—sometimes carried out in a modest and gentlemanly way and on other occasions in the way we have witnessed this evening—the not unusual policy of compromise was adopted.
As has already been stated, Section 7 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1948, gave the Minister of Agriculture discretionary powers to grant licences to employees of animal welfare societies; that is, if he was satisfied that the society making the application could not obtain the services of an adequate number of veterinary surgeons. I shall leave the hon. Member for Ilford, North, who spoke in favour of the Second Reading of this Bill, in the hands of the Parliamentary Secretary, who will perhaps tell him whether or not the Department ever disagreed with the employment of part-time veterinary officers.
The licences that were granted permitted the owners to give certain treatment to animals, in spite of the general prohibition on the practice of veterinary surgery by unqualified persons, and there were two very good reasons for this. First, even the Royal College itself recognised and were not hesitant at all to make a statement to that effect, that the sudden cessation of unregistered practitioners might temporarily react against the activities of the P.D.S.A. Secondly, there was definitely a shortage of veterinary surgeons at that time, and a part of the intention and purpose of the 1948 Act was to make arrangements whereby there would be more veterinary students and, ultimately, many more veterinary surgeons.
Therefore, despite the strong recommendations of the Committee presided over by Sir John Chancellor, which recommended that in the national interest, in the interests of the veterinary profession and for humanitarian reasons, veterinary practice by persons without the requisite training and qualifications should be brought to an end, we provided in Section 7 of that Act the appropriate bridge between that sudden cessation of this form


of activity and doing what was done previously by unqualified dentists, unqualified ophthalmic surgeons, or whatever they happened to be. The appropriate bridge was provided, and, since that time, the veterinary graduates have been qualifying at two new veterinary departments at Bristol and Cambridge Universities. As has already been said by the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), the number of veterinary surgeons on the register today is 1,000 in excess of what it was in 1949, or 20 per cent. more.
Therefore, it is quite clear that the situation is changing. Speaking on the Second Reading of the 1948 Bill nine years ago. I said:
I want to make it clear"—
and this was not challenged—
and this will anticipate questions, perhaps— that this is a purely temporary expedient. As the number of veterinary surgeons increases, automatically the number of licences granted will be reduced, until finally, of course, the time will come when no licences will be granted at all."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 4th June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 1503.]
The hon. Member for Ilford, North suggested that when a certain Committee was set up it was for the purpose of the Minister being able to dodge the column, to get round his own publicly made statements. Clearly that could not be correct, and if the hon. Gentleman is the gentleman he thinks he is, he would not hesitate to apologise for some of the observations he has made.
Initially, after the passing of the Bill, licences were issued in quite considerable numbers to the P.D.S.A., and some were granted later. At present, no less than about 80 licences still exist for employees of the P.D.S.A., and one other animal welfare society holds six similar licences. It is true that discussions took place over a long period of time between the Ministry, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the P.D.S.A., and they were designed to provide ways and means, in a gentlemanly, courteous and appropriate mariner, to bring to an end the issue of licences. It did not matter to me whether it was in 1953, 1957 or 1991. I wanted to find an appropriate and agreed policy which would ultimately lead to an end of the licensing system.
There was no possibility of agreement, because the P.D.S.A. never intended that

these licences. So in June, 1951, the there should be an end to.the granting of Committee was set up which was referred to by the hon. Member for Ilford, North, and it was presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). I shall leave it to the chairman of that Committee to deal with the Committee's findings. All I would say is just this.
From the very first this compromise did work, so long as the P.D.S.A. would allow it to work. Ministers issued licences wherever they could be justified. It is now nine years after the passing of the Act which I suggested was only a temporary expedient. The P.D.S.A. now comes to this House with a special Bill to take away the discretion of the Minister, and not only that, but to provide that, in the words of the Bill, if application is made for licences,
the Minister shall"—
no "may" about it—
either grant such licences or shall refer the matter to an independent referee.
When the referee has examined the situation he shall be able to decide how many, if any, licences are to be issued, and the Minister must comply with what the referee suggests.
If that is not a derogation of Parliamentary decencies, I should like to know what it is. The Bill is not only almost biting the hand that fed the P.D.S.A. in 1948; it is a piece of colossal cheek on the part of those who produced the Bill, almost equal to that of the hon. Member who spoke to the Second Reading.

8.53 p.m.

Sir Thomas Moore: I am grateful for the privilege of speaking a few words on this Bill. I would also like to make it clear that, in spite of my long association with the R.S.P.C.A., I am not speaking as an official of that body. I have been on its Council for more than a quarter of a century, and I think I know its feelings and views on the various subjects touching animal welfare, but I am not being asked by it to speak, and I speak only because I think it is right in this case to say what I have to say.
Anyone with any connection with the R.S.P.C.A. knows that that great society would never seek to criticise any other body working for the same humane causes. We all know that the P.D.S.A.


does very good, useful and fine work, and I would not like in any way to minimise that work. I knew the founder of that society, Mrs. Dickin, and I had a great admiration and regard for her and for her noble ideals. I hope that the House will not think for a moment that I would seek to diminish or lessen the respect I have for the work of the P.D.S.A. and its founder.
Now what are the purposes of the Bill? I want to get away from all the examination of previous Acts, previous Bills and previous negotiations, and get down to the basic facts. What is the purpose of this Bill? It is to secure our authority, the authority of this House, to allow the sick animals of this country to be cared for by people professionally unqualified, despite whatever their intentions, or good will, or tender-heartedness may be. That is the purpose of the Bill.
I would stress the words "poor people". Immediately one feels compelled to ask, why should the pet animals of poor people be discriminated against like this? Why should they only have to suffer unqualified treatment whereas the well-to-do can take their pets to fully qualified veterinary surgeons? I think there is something undemocratic about this Bill which the House inevitably must reject.
What is the answer to that question? The answer, according to the Bill itself, is that despite repeated and persistent advertising the P.D.S.A. cannot get an adequate number of qualified veterinary surgeons to deal with its clinics. With all due respect to the P.D.S.A., that is sheer nonsense. The R.S.P.C.A.—I hope the House will forgive me quoting the R.S.P.C.A. but I know so much about its work—employs something like 300 to 400 part-time and full-time veterinary surgeons to cover all its 200 or 300 clinics. It has never found the slightest difficulty in getting a veterinary surgeon to meet its requirements. Why is that? It is because it pays adequate salaries and gives acceptable conditions of service, which the P.D.S.A. does not.

Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. Member expound that a little further because many hon. Members are trying to find whether they are for or against this Bill? Will he explain what the P.D.S.A. has done which does not make veterinary surgeons respond to its advertising?

Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member will have to ask the veterinary surgeons; it is they who will not respond to the advertisements of the P.D.S.A. They will not accept the conditions of service or salaries which the P.D.S.A. is prepared to offer.

Mr. Dodds: The hon. Baronet does not know what they are?

Sir T. Moore: I will not be led into qualifications of my remarks. Ask any veterinary surgeon, ask the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, or the veterinary profession as a whole, why they do not respond to the advertisements of the P.D.S.A. They will tell the hon. Member that without my taking an hour and a quarter in doing so.
Everyone in this House and outside knows what a magnificent contribution the veterinary profession makes to the care of sick animals in this country. Very often they give their services voluntarily and very often unpaid. They do so because of the pride they have in their profession. They are opposed to this lowering of the standards of care for animals to which their lives are devoted. I have heard one of them say that they would bitterly object to the animals which they are qualified and trained to care for being "mauled about" by unqualified and untrained people. I agree with them.
I ask only one question of any hon. Member who may have any doubts about the Bill. If his wife or his children were in grave danger, grave illness and grave need of hospital or doctor's attention, would he have an unqualified man to attend them or would he seek the best professional advice he could get? Of course he would seek advice and professional, trained, skilled attention for those he cares for. That is exactly what we ask for the animals, and I do not think it is an unfair request. I think the Bill is neither fair to the animals nor fair to the owners of those animals all over the country, and I hope that we shall have support for the request that the House should reject the Bill.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. A..J. Champion: My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) have, I think, adequately dealt


with the background leading up to the appointment of the Committee of which I had the honour to be chairman, and I will therefore not attempt to touch on the background beyond the point at which I received this appointment.
Let me say straight away that I think the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) did himself less than justice when he made his scathing remarks about that Committee which was set up by my right hon. Friend. It is fair that he should attack me. I am a politician and, therefore, I must be open to attack from whichever quarter it comes. I do not object to the fact that he attacked me personally, but I reject absolutely, completely and entirely, all his references to the remainder of this Committee.
It was an honour to be chairman of that Committee. It was an honour for men of great eminence in their professions and in public life composed the Committee, and they gave generously of their time and services. I have never sat with people who, in my opinion, were better from that aspect. It appeared to me, I must say, that they brought an independent judgment to bear upon the problems presented to them, and their conclusions and recommendations were arrived at on the evidence submitted to them by the various bodies.
If I may say so—and this does not apply to me; I am talking of the rest of the Committee—they were painstaking in their examination of the memoranda and evidence submitted to them. They were patient in the hearing of witnesses and scrupulously careful in the preparation of their Report. To call this Committee a white-washing Committee is to do grave disservice to people who gave so generously of their time and knowledge. It is a good thing for this country that men of their calibre will voluntarily give services, and it will be a sorry day for this country when similar men will not. But if they are talked about as they have been talked about tonight it will act as a serious deterrent.
The main conclusion upon which the recommendations of the Committee were founded is to be found in paragraph 92 of the Report:
So long as the licensing of employees of animal welfare societies under Section 7 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1948, continues, the

animals of the poor will not receive the best diagnosis and treatment. It is in the public interest, and in the interests of the animal, that the objective of the Act—to bring to an end the practice of veterinary surgery by unregistered persons—should be achieved as soon as practicable.
That conclusion was based mainly upon the Report of Sir Thomas Dalling, then the Chief Veterinary Officer of the Ministry who reported to us. We summarised his Report as follows:
A report furnished to us at our request by Sir Thomas Dalling, Chief Veterinary Officer of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, on the training given by the P.D.S.A. to its employees expresses the opinion, with which we agree, that the tuition given, while suitable and adequate for certain limited purposes, falls far short of that given to a veterinary student. Without labouring the point unduly, a person who is not a fully trained professional man is liable to make mistakes in diagnosis which, with more thorough training and greater knowledge, would be avoided. An incorrect diagnosis may involve unnecessary suffering to the animal or its premature destruction as incurable.
This was the conclusion which we arrived at, based upon the Report of a very eminent man in the profession; a man who was not, I would say, at that time beholden to his profession for advancement or anything else. He went down, examined the training, and brought back a report which we immediately accepted.
Having accepted that conclusion, the Committee then turned its mind to the ability of the animal welfare societies concerned to obtain these services of veterinary surgeons——

Sir T. Moore: Before the hon. Gentleman goes further, could he help me on this point? Was any evidence given as to the methods of treatment offered to animals. Was there, I mean, any evidence of a difference in attitude towards the scientific method of treating animals produced before the members of the Committee? Is it a fact that some evidence was produced that homœopathic methods were favoured by the P.D.S.A., and that anti-biotics were not used without laboratory section or test of the particular organ concerned?

Mr. Champion: It is, of course, well known that the founder of the society believed in the homœopathic treatment of animals—whatever that might mean. It is certainly very difficult in relation to animals. But that was the view of the


founder of the society, who is now dead, and I do not want to introduce prejudice into the arguments I am now advancing.
The fact is that it was no part of our job to try to bring the activities of the P.D.S.A. to an end. That was not our objective, and certainly we hoped not to achieve such an end as that. But we were quite satisfied, in early 1952 when we presented our Report, that provided, even at that time, the veterinary surgeons who were available were properly used there would have been no need to grant further licences. That was our conclusion. Indeed, we felt that provided, as I say, proper use was made of the material which was at that time available, the problem was capable of immediate solution but in order to tide over difficult times, as quite obviously there were, and in order to give the society concerned reasonable time and opportunity in which to work out the use of part-time surgeons in this connection, we made our recommendation.
Our recommendation was that, until 1953, the Minister should be permitted to go on granting such licences as we had made a recommendation about, but that beyond that period, only if the Minister was satisfied on certain points, which I have read out already, should that practice be continued. Therefore, we recommended that there should be a period of years during which the practice continued, but that, after that, the Minister should not issue any more licences unless he satisfied himself that neither the full-time nor the part-time services of veterinary surgeons were available.
It has to be remembered that the Committee had before it the evidence submitted by the R.S.P.C.A., and here I have to support the point of view of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore). The R.S.P.C.A. has consistently refrained from lowering its standards of treatment. It has said throughout that the diagosis of animal sickness should be in the hands of qualified surgeons, and it has stuck to that principle. Indeed, it told us that it had obtained the full number of veterinary surgeons necessary for certain of its clinics in London and many in the provinces, and that it had no difficulty at all in obtaining the part-time services of veterinary surgeons for the rest of its services. At that time, going back to 1951–52, it had no less than 500 veterinary

surgeons giving part-time service in the various R.S.P.C.A. schemes, which, in my opinion, rather tends to destroy the point made that it is impossible to obtain veterinary surgeons for this job.
Since the presentation of our Report in 1952, there have been added to the list of veterinary surgeons in this country no less than 650 qualified persons. Even if we were wrong in 1952, the addition of this further 650 must have destroyed any argument there can be that there was not or is not available a sufficient number of veterinary surgeons to do the job.
I do not wish to say anything against the P.D.S.A. I recognise that it is doing a useful job, and I should be the last person to try to destroy the work it is doing. But if the R.S.P.C.A. can give to the animals which are brought to it qualified and proper treatment, it should be possible, providing the P.D.S.A. were really willing, for it also to give qualified treatment to the animals of the poor brought to it.

Mr. Dodds: I should like to follow my hon. Friend's argument. Would he say why the people who now go in great numbers to the P.D.S.A. do not go to the R.S.P.C.A. where there are qualified persons? Is he saying that the P.D.S.A. does not do enough good work?

Mr. Champion: I am not saying anything against the work of the P.D.S.A., except that it does it by unqualified people. It should do it by employing qualified surgeons.

Mr. Dodds: Would my hon. Friend deal with the question I put? If the R.S.P.C.A. does it by qualified veterinary surgeons, why then does he think people still go to the P.D.S.A.?

Sir T. Moore: Might I answer that? It is simply because the people who take their animals to the P.D.S.A. do not know that they are being looked after by unqualified people.

Mr. Champion: That is the answer, and I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for helping me out in this connection. I should have remembered that point.
What does the Bill propose? It really seeks to take a power vested in the Minister to grant licences under Section 7 of the 1948 Act out of his hands and place


it in the hands of some independent referee so called. I believe that that would be quite contrary to the express intention of Parliament in 1948. It would be taking away from the Minister a power which properly ought to reside with him.
In this matter, as in many others, the Minister should be answerable to Parliament. It is right that we should have been able last Monday to question him as to his issuing or not issuing licences under Section 7. I want to be in a position always to be able to put down a Question and to get the Minister to the Dispatch Box and answer me as to why he has granted or has refused to grant licences to the P.D.S.A. or to anyone else. We cannot have the Minister shelving his responsibility by being in a position to say at the Box, "I do not really know why we have not granted—or have granted—these licences. The independent referee has taken a decision, and I do not quite know why he did it." That would be a quite false position for us to be in, and it would be quite contrary to the decent traditions of this House.
Inevitably, this is a matter which is represented and accepted by some in this House and elsewhere as a question of the animals of the poor against the vested interests of a well-to-do profession. It is not my purpose to speak for the profession, and I cannot do so. It is capable of doing that for itself. What I see in this whole question is: Are we in favour of animals, whether owned by rich or poor, getting the best possible treatment by those qualified by education and training to give it?
I am a member of a party which, since its inception, has struggled to ensure that people should not he treated by unqualified practitioners. I do not believe that human beings should be treated in sick-ness by people who have not been properly trained to treat them. At tremendous cost to the nation, it has now secured that rich and poor should receive treatment by qualified people, and it is right that that should be the case.
I would say that we ought to ensure that animals are placed in a similar position as soon as it is humanly possible to bring that about. Despite any immediate difficulties and the appeals to our sympathies, this House must encourage the Minister to stand firm against the con-

tinuance of the unqualified treatment of animals, and it must, in the interests of decent Parliamentary practice, reject the Bill.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Norman Dodds: I rise to at least support the Second Reading of this Bill. That does not mean that I could really get up and defend every provision of the Bill. What I am trying to bear in mind is that I am certain that there are not many hon. Members of this House on either side who know very much about the arguments for or against the Bill; in fact, I was very interested to read the list of Members on a circular sent out by the British Veterinary Association and the names of hon. Members who support the Amendment that the Bill should be read six months hence.
In my efforts to try to come to a conclusion, I spoke to one or two hon. Members to find out more about the Bill. I was astonished to find how little some of them knew about the arguments for and against the Bill. I hope that the House will at least give it a Second Reading so that in Committee all these points can be hammered out.

Mr. Peter Kirk: There is only one operative Clause in the Bill. How can all these various points be hammered out? There is only one to hammer out.

Mr. Dodds: If the hon. Member will be patient I shall be able to put my point. I have been much more patient than he has been. I have been here since the beginning of the debate. He must not lose his patience yet.
While this may be, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested, a very narrow Bill, I would suggest that the arguments for and against might be put in Committee when many of the difficulties which have been raised here could be thrashed out.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), as he admitted, has a very big interest in it. He is a Member of Parliament and represents the main constituent that is behind the Bill. I have no vested interest, and what I am trying to do is to see fair play in this House. It is very difficult to come to a conclusion and to a fair testimony on the Second Reading on one side or the other. Why I ask that the Bill should be given a Second Reading is that I was a Member of the Committee which considered a


Private Member's Bill upstairs in the 1955–56 Session when there was a dispute between the Royal College and the P.D.S.A.
It was most enlightening to have these issues thrashed out. I will not say which way the battle went, but I will say that from my own contact with this subject I often wonder whether the P.D.S.A. would not get a better lobby if it were called, say, the Royal College of the P.D.S.A. In other words, I feel that the case for the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is put over more strongly in this House than that of the P.D.S.A.
That is why I suggest that it would be much easier to come to a conclusion in a Committee where time would be available to thrash out these points.

Sir T. Moore: Qualified or unqualified—that is the only point.

Mr. Dodds: I will deal with that point as well, but I want to make my points in my own way even if I am not able to do so as well as the hon. Gentleman. Since he has interrupted me, however, I will say that he has made it difficult to come to a conclusion because at the beginning of his speech he praised the work of the P.D.S.A., even though it has operated with unqualified veterinary surgeons. He cannot have it both ways. He should bear in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) said that it was not the object of the Committee over which he presided to bring the P.D.S.A. to an end. I accept that but, from what I have seen of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, I am certain that it would not shed one tear if the P.D.S.A. came to an end.

Captain Duncan: I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to say that, because it is not so at all. The Royal College has always attempted to co-operate and, as his right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) said, is still willing to co-operate in this matter.

Mr. Dodds: What I am saying, I believe. It may be that I am wrong, but, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman contradicts me, it is not necessarily the case. Much more than that interjection will be needed before I alter my opinion that the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons would not shed one single tear

if the P.D.S.A. went out of existence tomorrow. If the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) read what took place upstairs, he would find that even when the P.D.S.A. had an excellent case for the licences, the hostility of the Royal College had to be seen to be believed, so I would take a lot of convincing.
The point is that, whether the animals belong to the poor or the rich, I would feel much happier if I knew, just as in the case of humans, that the people who are to operate have the qualifications and training which most of us think necessary under all the circumstances. We do not differ on that point. What I have to be convinced of is that there are sufficient veterinary surgeons available. The point was made that if the P.D.S.A. paid the money, it would get them. That is where my difficulty lies. The evidence that I have does not suggest that it is as easy as that. As someone hinted earlier, it might be a matter of the P.D.S.A. being a type of society with which a qualified veterinary surgeon would not have anything to do.
The hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) made a point about salaries. I can speak only on the basis of the evidence that I have. That is why I should like to see such matters thrashed out in Committee. When one is sincere and wishes to see fair play, it is not fitting to come to a conclusion on the basis of hon. Members merely rising and saying that it is so or is not so. My evidence is that since 1954 the society has advertised regularly in the "Veterinary Record", the national publication for veterinary surgeons, and the terms offered for the employment of veterinary surgeons are those which were agreed between the society and the R.C.V.S. In fact, the salary offered has since been increased above that recommended by the R.C.V.S. I should very much like to have the matter thrashed out in Committee, and whether I should be for or against the Bill would depend very largely upon whether it was decided that that was correct or incorrect. At all events, it is a question which needs to be answered.
It has been stated that, notwithstanding such continuous advertising, the society has been able to secure the services of only five veterinary surgeons during a


period when the total loss of staff due to death, retirement and so on was twenty-one, comprising five veterinary surgeons, ten veterinary practitioners and six licensees. The society points out that if this situation continues, many of the branches of the P.D.S.A. will have to close.
I have been told that the R.S.P.C.A. has been able to obtain qualified people. That is an important point. It has been suggested that the R.S.P.C.A. will in some cases take part-time people although it really wants full-time staff. I am puzzled to know why the P.D.S.A. cannot do similarly. It has been said that the P.D.S.A. maintains a twenty-four hour service and consequently requires a full-time staff. I should like this matter to be thrashed out in Committee because I cannot understand why the P.D.S.A. must have full-time staff. In asking the House to give the Bill a Second Reading I give an assurance that if these questions are not answered satisfactorily I shall not support the Bill in its further stages.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, spoke of the difficulties that he had in getting the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and the P.D.S.A. to come to any sort of agreement at all. From what I have seen in a private committee, I accept that. There is unnecessary hostility. That is why I am speaking tonight.
It has been said that there are 1,000 more veterinary surgeons today than there were in 1949. That is a very important factor, but those of us who are laymen require that to be put into its proper perspective in relation to the need for veterinary surgeons. Answering a Question on 17th May, 1956, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that there was at present a shortage of veterinary officers. If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says that, I believe him, for he is a man to whose utterances high respect should be given.
In weighing the evidence, I must take note that as late as last year the Minister said that there was a shortage of veterinary surgeons. That supports the claim of the P.D.S.A. that, despite offering a salary agreed with the R.C.V.S., and even in excess of it, it cannot get the men. Surely we all know that there are vested interests even in the professions,

and I should have thought that on this side of the House especially we should have taken extra care. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East, in supporting the Amendment, gave us some explanation about what we on this side of the House have been fighting for and one of his points was that vested interests should be broken up.
This does not mean that I think the Bill should go on the Statute Book, but it is impossible for hon. Members on the testimony advanced to say whether the Bill should have a Second Reading or not. It should have a second chance so that in Committee many of these points can be thrashed out. I ask in the name of fair play that, no matter what undertakings hon. Members might have given, there should be fair play between the two organisations. I do not believe there can be fair play simply by rejecting the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. F. Blackburn: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is more fair play with this Bill which is being debated on Second Reading than with the Bill dealt with earlier tonight, which was rejected on Second Reading without a debate?

Mr. Dodds: I fully accept that, but I must differ from my hon. Friend if he thinks that that is a justification for rejecting this Bill.

9.32 p.m.

Dr. Barnett Stross: I assure the House that I shall be brief, as it is getting late. I have carefully studied both sides of the case and my own conclusion is that the P.D.S.A. is mistaken on one point. It is a crucial point—its absolute refusal to employ qualified staff part time. This has been made clear. It was made clear in the speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) who declared on his own behalf and on behalf of the P.D.S.A. that it will not accept part-time servants, however well qualified they may be.
Indeed, it is said very plainly that not only is that not acceptable to the organisation, but that the use of part-time veterinary surgeons would destroy the character and purpose of the society. However, no one has explained what that means. We are left somewhat in the dark about why having fully qualified men


serving part-time would destroy its character and its purpose. It has become abundantly clear that the R.S.P.C.A. does not feel that there is any threat to its character or its composition in employing part-time veterinary surgeons. I appeal to the society, which has sponsored the Bill, to think about this matter again.
I asked a question about homeopathy. That was not to create prejudice. I succeeded to a homeopathic practice in Stoke-on-Trent and I believe that Hahneman's dictum, similia similibus curantur may not be entirely wrong. I also accept that the whole basis of bacteriology—that is the use of vaccines as a treatment in which a little of the disease is injected into one to cure the disease—may well be evidence in favour of homeopathy. I was not attempting to bring any prejudice into this discussion. I am not a homeopath and I should not like any animal, child or other human being to be denied the most scientific modern usages such as the use of antibiotics or injections of penicillin, which we know are so effective. I would not debar any animal from having such treatment upon ideological grounds.
If, by any chance, the P.D.S.A. is prejudiced against such modern methods of treating animals, I beg it to think again, for this may explain why it does not want veterinary surgeons.

Mr. Iremonger: The hon. Member misrepresents the intention of the P.D.S.A. which, as I understand it, is to employ full-time veterinary surgeons as soon as it can. If it were given the chance tomorrow it would not hesitate to do so, all other things being equal.

Dr. Stross: That argument does not hold water. It does not appeal to me. It is not logical, and I cannot accept it. The P.D.S.A. has five officers. All this time it has refused to accept part-time veterinary officers. It has said for years that it will never agree to employ them. It has only five veterinary officers, and it has had only five all this time. It tends not to get young men, or people with experience of small animals. Instead, it gets administrators and men of the ex-Army type, who have dealt with large animals.
I find myself in a quandary in this matter. I appeal to the P D.S.A. to think

again and not to reject modern science purely upon what I feel may well be ideological grounds. There is a great deal of room for the P.D.S.A. There is room for everyone who wants to help the sick, whether they be animal or human. If the organisation brings prejudice into the field because of certain preconceived ideas it must not think that it can tell the House its business, insult our Ministers by implication, and expect us to support it.

9.37 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I am sure it will be the wish of the House that I should state briefly the view of the Government upon the Bill. Whenever the House discusses problems of animals, it always has very acutely in mind the desire not only of hon. Members but of all the people in the British Isles to see that the very best possible treatment is given to them. It is a national characteristic of which we should be very proud.
We have had a useful discussion, and there are one or two points with which I should like to deal, which have been raised by two Members in particular. But, at the outset, I must say that I regret the note upon which the discussion was started by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). It was quite out of character with the rest of the debate and, if I may say this to him, I do not think that it did the cause he was advocating very much good. He said one or two things that I feel I must take up.
My right hon. Friend and I think that the P.D.S.A. has done a great deal of good in the country, and is continuing to do so. Nothing I say here tonight is designed in any way to detract from that. I merely want to look at the Bill upon its merits, and I certainly do not wish to say anything critical of the way in which the Society tries to help the animals of the poor.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) quoted one or two passages from the excellent Report of his Committee, and there is one which I wish to quote straight away in order to emphasise the way in which I am trying


to look at the matter. In paragraph 17 the Committee says:
Our conclusion is, therefore, that so long as the licensing system continues the animals of the poor will not receive the best diagnosis and treatment.
That is probably the most important aspect of the whole matter. It is the treatment of animals which should weigh most with us. In paragraph 72 it says:
We see no reason why animals of the poor should be deprived of professional assistance available to others merely to avoid some slight inconvenience to their owners or because a veterinary surgeon does not happen to be at a dispensary when the owner calls.
I think that is the tone which was reflected in most of the speeches we have heard tonight, and that is the way in which I prefer to regard the matter.
The P.D.S.A. was in a difficult position at the time of the passing of the 1948 Act. That was recognised by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) who was the Minister at the time. The provisions of Section 7 of that Act went a long way to meet the genuine difficulties which the Society was then experiencing. Unfortunately, despite the provisions of that Section, difficulties did arise, and so the right hon. Member for Don Valley appointed the Champion Committee. That Committee reported after my party had come into office and the then Minister of Agriculture accepted the Report; and in the line they have taken the Government have been largely guided by the recommendations of that Committee.
I think it important to remember in relation to this Bill that it was in recognition of the value of the work done by the P.D.S.A., and the difficulty in which it was placed by the prohibition of unregistered practice, that special arrangements were made in Section 7 of the 1948 Act; for this was the only animal welfare society which it was expected would require a considerable number of these licences. Six were allotted to another society, but apart from that number the great bulk of the licences, over 100, have been given to the P.D.S.A., which is the body primarily concerned.
Several hon. Members have spoken about Section 7 of the 1948 Act, and I do not wish to pursue the matter further, except to emphasise that it has always been accepted that it was intended to be a temporary provision. The right hon.

Member for Don Valley made that clear in the quotation which he gave from his Second Reading speech.
The object of this Bill is to alter the policy regarding the issue of licences which was adopted by the Government on the advice of the Champion Committee. I must inform hon. Members that the Government object to this Bill on two grounds. First, the effect of Clause 3 would be to take away from the Minister discretion regarding the issue of licences. That has been criticised by several hon. Members, and I think that they were right to do so.
In my view, it is wrong that such discretion should be taken from the Minister. We feel that the prohibition of the practice of veterinary surgery by unregistered persons was an important act of policy, and any power to grant partial exemption by way of licence under Section 7 of the 1948 Act must remain vested in a Minister of the Crown who is answerable to this House. It would be undesirable that one organisation—for that is what it amounts to—just because it is dissatisfied with the way in which a public Act is administered, should be able by means of a Private Bill to take power out of the hands of the Minister and out of the control of Parliament. I wish to emphasise that because I consider it very important.
Clause 3 of this Bill also provides that licences should be granted unless the P.D.S.A. is able to obtain the full-time services of an adequate number of veterinary surgeons. That is the crux of the dispute, and it was made clear in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North, who spoke at considerable length on the subject of part-time veterinary surgeons. The view of the Champion Committee was that by the end of 1953 there would be sufficient veterinary surgeons available to meet the needs of animal welfare societies, if they made use of the part-time services of veterinary surgeons where possible; it hinged on that. The Committee examined the difficulties that this might cause to the P.D.S.A. and came to the conclusion that they were not insurmountable. The Committee recommended that no further licences should be issued after the end of 1953 unless the Minister was satisfied that neither the full-time nor part-time services of veterinary surgeons was available. The Government of the day accepted this


recommendation, and we are therefore concerned here not purely with a matter of full-time employment, but with part-time employment as well.
Having heard the arguments put forward this evening, I remain convinced that the Committee was right in the view it took that the P.D.S.A. should make use of part-time service. In any case, what is the alternative? The evidence of the P.D.S.A. to the Champion Committee showed that there were some 167 employees of the society engaged in treating animals, of whom only three were veterinary surgeons. If, therefore, it is the aim of the P.D.S.A. to employ no one but veterinary surgeons in its full-time employment on treating animals, it means that the society must be aiming at a total strength of well over 150 full-time veterinary surgeons.
I suggest to the House that, quite frankly, this is wholly unrealistic. If anything like a reasonable salary is provided for this number of professional men, the cost would be very great indeed. In fact, I believe it has recruited scarcely anyone since 1952, although the total number of veterinary surgeons on the roll has risen in the time since the publication of the Champion Report, by some 700. That is the measure of the P.D.S.A.'s failure to implement the policy which it has set itself, and, if in fact it has been unable to do this, it is quite clear that it must try to readjust its policy to present conditions.
I think one or two hon. Members have touched on the fact that it is quite unrealistic to try to get whole-time veterinary surgeons. The type of work the society is offering does not attract the best type of veterinary surgeon on a full-time basis, because it does not give enough scope to the fully trained man. In any case, it would be a tremendous waste for trained personnel to be doing all the jobs which the P.D.S.A. is carrying out.
I think I ought to deal particularly with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North when dealing with this question of part-time veterinary surgeons. He made great play with a document which he very kindly passed on to me. I find some difficulty in using this document, although my hon. Friend quoted from it, because I find that

at the top it is headed "Confidential." I think it is rather unfortunate that my hon. Friend did quote from a confidential document, and I therefore do not propose to comment directly on anything in it, or quote from it, except to say that, having read it, I do not find that his argument that the Minister of the day in any way opposed part-time veterinary surgeons is at all conclusive.
In any case, I have in front of me a copy of a letter sent from Sir D. Vandepeer, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry at the time, to Mr. Bridges Webb, the Chairman of the P.D.S.A., on 4th July, 1952, in which he dealt very clearly with this point. I will not bore the House with the whole letter, but will read the relevant section. He says:
If our understanding is correct, it would seem that there is a substantial measure of agreement with the recommendations of the Committee except in regard to the part-time employment of veterinary surgeons.
On this latter point, the P.D.S.A. appear to have mistaken the Committee's recommendation and the Minister's acceptance of it as part of the whole scheme. The recommendation turned down by the Ministry in 1947 was as stated in the P.D.S.A. memorandum that unregistered or unlicensed practice could be made legal by mere supervision. The present recommendation from the Committee is that unregistered or unlicensed persons should be confined to work which does not require registration or licence, that there are useful functions of this kind for unregistered and unlicensed officers to perform, provided that they can call in a registered or licensed practitioner, employed whole time or part time by the Society for work which they could not lawfully carry out themselves under the Veterinary Surgeons Act.
That really deals with the point; the position was made abundantly clear to Mr. Bridges Webb at that time, and I am very sorry to read at this date that the P.D.S.A. claim that the Ministry has changed its view on this matter. It is clear and was clear in 1947—this document I have read, which I do not propose to quote, does not change my view of the matter—that the Ministry saw nothing wrong with the part-time working of veterinary surgeons. What it did not see was that the presence of a veterinary surgeon made it necessarily right that the officers of the P.D.S.A. should carry out the work themselves, under supervision. That is a thing that we are not prepared to agree to and is quite a different point from the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North.
The matter has now been pretty adequately dealt with by hon. Members, and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into the matter in detail. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] A point I would mention is the question of the 26 licences; the 17 that were issued were all that were asked for at that time. I see, therefore, no question of breach of promise. The time factor is relevant; I do not think that the present position is at all comparable with what it was at that time.

Mr. Iremonger: I cannot get over the point about the one which was applied for within that period. The one who qualified within that period was asked for as one of the 26, and was still turned down again.

Mr. Godber: Yes, I realise the point, but it does not alter the argument I have used. There is, as I have said, the time factor and the fact that more full-time veterinary surgeons were becoming available all the time, added to the fact that the P.D.S.A. still found it impossible to use part-time men. That made it almost impossible for the Minister to grant any more of these licences.
That is all that it is necessary for me to say on this issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that I have the House with me. There is, however, one point which was raised by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds). He wanted to send the Bill to Committee. I do not think it is necessary in this case where the issues are so clear, and I am sure that the House is ready to reach a decision on this matter without sending

the Bill to Committee. Had the matter been as complicated as the hon. Gentleman sought to find it, there might have been something in that point. I honestly do not think he made out a case. He made the point that the Minister said that a shortage existed in 1956. That is a perfectly fair debating point, but it was in a very different context.
I do not deny, nor does my right hon. Friend, that there is not an amplitude of veterinary surgeons at the present time, but there has been an increase of 1,000 over the last few years. It is extraordinary, if the P.D.S.A. is determined to have full-time veterinary surgeons, that it has not been able to recruit them. If it is wedded to the full-time system, it must be able to offer sufficiently attractive terms of service to get them. If it cannot, then the only practical thing is for it to go on to the part-time basis, which is the system that other organisations find perfectly suitable and which would give satisfactory results for the animals of the poor people; that is what matters.
We want to see this work go on, and we are convinced, in spite of all that the P.D.S.A. has said, that if it will only try the system of part-time veterinary surgeons, that is the right way. The Ministry will help all it can. The Bill is not the answer and I ask the House, without any question whatever, to reject it.

Question, That "now" stand part of the Question, put and negatived.

Proposed words there added.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Second Reading put off for six months.

TAXIS, SOLIHULL (PETROL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: One of the proudest traditions of the Commons is that we seek to remedy injustice and anyone is entitled to have his personal difficulties when caused by injustice raised in this House. It is for that reason that I wish tonight to raise the hardship—excessive and unfair in my opinion—caused to a constituent of mine, Mr. A. S. Howes of Solihull, by the rigidity of the petrol rationing scheme.
This gentleman is the owner of three taxis in Solihull and, apart from two individual one-man operators, he does the whole of the taxi business in the town. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power has already been good enough to discuss this case with me three times and I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for the attention he has given to it. As I explained to him, Mr. Howes' vehicles are not registered as taxis but as hackney carriages, because in Solihull we find there is no need for a taxi to stand all day on the rank, and this proprietor is able to offer exactly the same service from his premises in the centre of the town.
Because Mr. Howes' registration is for hackney carriages and not for taxis, he finds himself gravely prejudiced under the petrol rationing scheme. His cars normally use 1,600 gallons in the four-month period, whereas his allocations, both basic and supplementary, have been 800 gallons only, which is 50 per cent. of his requirements. That makes nonsense both of the conception of a 25 per cent. cut and of Ministers' oft-repeated statements that no self-employed man is to be prejudiced by petrol rationing in earning his living.
Had my constituent's vehicles been registered as taxis instead of as hackney carriages, he would have had all the petrol he requires. For the expenditure of about £80 a vehicle, namely, the cost of the meter and the change in cost of insurance, he could change his class of registration and get all the petrol he needs. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it would be nonsensical to suggest that a man should be put to that expense

in order to keep his three vehicles on the road.
I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that the difficulty in which he finds himself is that the Hackney Carriage Porprietors' Association has stated that the present allocation of petrol is more or less adequate.

It being Ten o'clock the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed,? That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Mr. Lindsay: If it is adequate for the majority of hackney proprietors, it certainly cannot be considered adequate for exceptionally hard-working men, such as my constituent, who make greater use of their vehicles.
I am all the more sorry to have to expose this particular injustice, because now that the petrol rationing scheme has got into its stride I have the impression that it is working smoothly. At any rate, I think that this is true of the Midlands, and that the regional petroleum officer and his staff in Birmingham have been as successful as one could hope in easing the difficulties. Indeed, I get the impression that every reasonable application for supplementary petrol is now being met without difficulty.
I therefore ask: why cannot the obvious injustice in this case be put right? Surely, Mr. Speaker, no rationing scheme should be so inflexible as to take no account of special cases, the genuine nature of which is not in dispute. This is not only causing considerable hardship to the man concerned, but also to the many people in Solihull who normally use his services. All I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary to say is that a proprietor who provides the equivalent of a taxi service—when this is proved beyond doubt—should be treated for petrol rationing on the same basis as if his registration were, in fact, taxi. This, I submit, is a very simple administrative decision which would remove quite a hardship, and it is the decision which I am asking my hon. and learned Friend to take.

10.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton): I must first thank my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay)


for his courtesy in discussing this matter with me at some length, as he has mentioned, before raising it on the Floor of the House. I should also like to thank him for the tribute which he paid to the work of our regional petroleum officer at Birmingham who, like all the other regional petroleum officers, has had a vast amount of work to contend with, and has, we feel, got on top of it very well indeed.
The basic facts of the case which my hon. Friend has put forward are not disputed between us. I should, however, like to elaborate upon them to some extent, in order that I may explain clearly to the House the true position with regard to my hon. Friend's constituent. Hire cars can be licensed either as "private" hire cars or as "hackney" hire cars. Mr. Howes has three cars, and they are all licensed as "hackney" hire cars. Our petrol rationing scheme allows different maxima of supplementary coupons according to the type of the vehicle.
There are three broad categories. The highest category—the one that gets the most petrol—is that of taxis, and the reason they are given most petrol is because, broadly speaking, taking the country as a whole, taxis work on a more intensive scale. Within our taxi scales we make certain divisions. We recognise that some taxis work on a single shift and others on a double shift; and we make a distinction between the metropolitan area and provincial cities.
Next come the hackney hire cars. They get a higher maximum allocation than do the private hire cars because, broadly speaking, they are used for a much greater part of their time in plying for hire than are the private hire cars which are used very often on a most casual basis.
Of course, in each of these groups the maximum allocation depends on the horse power of the car. My hon. Friend's constituent has two cars of 16 h.p. and one car which we assume to be of between 14 and 19 h.p. Throughout the rationing period my hon. Friend's constituent has been allocated the maximum which hackney hire cars of those horse-powers have been allowed. As a result, they received at first, when the supplementary allocations for hire cars

were first made, 600 gallons for the four months ending 16th April. That was increased in early February to 804 gallons, again for the period up to 16th April.
The House will recollect that on Monday this week my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General announced that there would be a more generous basic ration, an increase of 50 per cent. for the next rationing period, and he said also that supplementary allowances would be increased. We have issued instructions to regional petroleum officers to increase the scales of maximum allowances for these various categories of vehicles which I have mentioned. I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that for the next four monthly period which begins on 17th April his constituent will receive 1,005 gallons for his three cars. That will in fact give him 62½ per cent. of what he estimates to be his normal usage.

Mr. Albert Roberts: The Minister has spoken of these maxima, saying they are fair and operate fairly, but who has decided that as regards the various kinds of taxi businesses concerned?

Mr. Renton: I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Roberts: The Minister has referred to obtaining the maxima for the particular type of licence. Who has said that the maxima are right or fair in comparison with other businesses?

Mr. Renton: That is a very fair question, and, of course, the answer depends upon the information we get from the various sources at our disposal. We consult all the interested organised bodies. We consult official bodies also, such as the Home Office and the police, and we consult the motoring organisations and everybody that we can consult in order to find out whether the maxima, which may not be exceeded by the regional petroleum officers, are in fact fair.
As I think is clear from the tribute which my hon. Friend has paid to the general administration of the scheme, broadly speaking, these maxima have been fair. We grant that this is rough justice, that it is an approximation based on estimated averages, and that estimated averages are not infallible. We do not


claim perfection for the system. All we can say is that these maxima are the most accurate we can arrive at on the information which is given to us. I concede that there will be the occasional case of an operator who has been accustomed to using far more than the estimated average, and in such occasional cases there may be some hardship. That one is bound to acknowledge. We have nevertheless to work on general averages, unfortunately; there is no other way of doing it when we have a quickly improvised scheme of this kind, even using the benefit of the experience which was there before.
To go back to the facts of my hon. Friend's case, Mr. Howes will in the next rationing period receive 62½ per cent. of what he estimates to be his normal needs. In the circumstances, I suggest that that is not too bad. It is interesting to compare it with what he would have received in the last four months if his vehicles had been taxis instead of hackney hire cars. In fact, it is almost exactly the same amount. He would have received 1,008 gallons in the last four monthly period if his vehicles had been taxis and he will receive 1,005 gallons in the next four months.
If Mr. Howes or the people of Solihull have suffered inconvenience or hardship, I am indeed sorry; but all I can say is that they have been treated as well as the people in any other town in similar circumstances. They have not been handicapped in any way.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, if Mr. Howes' vehicles had been licensed as taxis he would have received more. We hope that with this increase of 25 per cent. which is what he will get, both Mr. Howes and the people of Solihull will get along much better.
My hon. Friend said that the allocation in the last four monthly period, which is now nearly past history, makes nonsense of our overall cut of 25 per cent.
I should like to argue that point with him. In order to get an average overall cut of 25 per cent. and, at the same time, to give 100 per cent., or nearly 100 per cent., to a number of priority users, such as doctors, nurses, ambulances, fire brigades and others, it is necessary that all other users must take a cut of more than 25 per cent.; otherwise the average would never have been achieved. That is

the reason why Mr. Howes, along with a great many other operators in this country, has most unfortunately had to put up with a greater cut than 25 per cent. However, as I have already pointed out, it will not be nearly such a great cut in the future.
It might be helpful if I mention how the regional petroleum officer's consent operates in these cases. In the administration of the petrol rationing scheme the R.P.O.s have virtually two kinds of discretion. The first is what I would call a limited discretion. This enables them to grant allocations for particular categories of user, and we prescribe the maximum which they may allow in exercising their discretion in those cases. They also have a discretion to deal with certain categories of difficult case, but they cannot use their discretion in that way in those cases in which we have already laid down the maximum, as we have done, for example, for hire cars and taxis. That is the rule we have made. Broadly speaking, it has worked well, and I am afraid that we could not alter it in order to meet the difficulty in this case.
If I may summarise on that point, it is true that in certain circumstances the R.P.O.s have a wide discretion to deal with these cases but, in exercising it, they are not allowed to exceed the maximum, and we have prescribed the limits within which the R.P.O. has to operate for particular categories. In this case the R.P.O., in the exercise of his discretion, has throughout the history of the case allocated the maximum that he is allowed to allocate for hackney hire cars of the horsepower of Mr. Howes' cars.
I know that the reply I have given will not give complete satisfaction to my hon. Friend, and I would say only two things in conclusion. The first is that I assure the House that my hon. Friend has really tried hard to get us to see what he considers to be reason, and I have done my best to persuade him why we cannot meet his point of view, for good reasons of our own which I have tried to explain. The second is that however much Mr. Howes and the people of Solihull may have suffered up to the present, they will fare very much better from 17th April onwards.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Ten o'clock.